Intelligent Design and Bible Codes

biblecodes are pure unadulterated bs.Torah Codesthis is brendan mckay's page. if you saw the special i think you saw, they gave him about 30 seconds -- never mind the fact that he has totally refuted nearly every claim the coders make. i've heard him speak in person, as an invited lecturer at southeastern conference on graph theory, combinatorics and computing.arguments like this one are especially convincing.it's basically another case of "unintelligent design." actual intelligence can make much, much better codes.This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 10-10-2005 05:15 PM

---

אָרַח

clearly, "moby dick" was intelligently written! how silly of you to propose otherwise!added by edit: now, if we wanted to discuss, say, "for whom the bell tolls" ....This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 10-11-2005 04:19 AM

---

אָרַח

i'm not totally sure. i know when i heard mckay speak, he didn't concentrate the whole lecture on drosnin, and spent some time discussing other techniques and other coders. these might have been some of them.he mentioned, for instance, something about rigging programs and double standards. not being a statistician or a combinatorist, i didn't get any of the technical stuff.

---

אָרַח

someone who studies combinatorics.

---

אָרַח

seriously, i'll keep posting this link here. have a look at brendan mckay's torah codes page. this is my favourite example:

quote:

---

It is not really necessary to answer that claim, since nobody has established that the Bible contains more than what can be expected by chance alone. Neverthless, it is worth noting that if anyone really wanted to encode "secret messages" they would find it quite easy. In fact, with a little practice, it is possible to do vastly better than anything ever discovered in the Bible.

​

In January 1998, I sent the following example to the codes mailing list TCODE:

My aim in writing an ELS example for TCODE is simple. You say it is very hard, but I know that it isn't. To encode arbitrary phrases in text, put all those phrases in first then write the rest of the text around them. Language is loose in structure, allowing plenty of alternative forms to make a suitable passage from.

The interesting thing about the passage above (written by hand during a short plane flight) is that if you start at the first letter and use skip 14 you find "Mary had a little lamb". Check for yourself

​

Encoding messages is EASY

---

check the page for the proof. the reason it's my favourite example? well, there's a few. partially that it's minimal skip is far, far smaller than any the bible codes use. but mostly because it's actually a code: it encodes a complete message in the form of a sentance. it's not a jumble of random cross-words like "mary" "lamb" and "little" that we are left to interpret however we want. we can't read it any other way than the way it's presented.

---

i don't know where you get this idea. we can't even find evidence for king david (KING DAVID!), let alone some of the minor characters and events described. we have one piece of rock that hints he might have been a real person, as it lists someone as being "ben david." did you know that nostradamus and wingdings predicted 9/11? reading something into a prophecy in hindsight can be all too easy -- and that's what's being done with the bible codes. the test is to make a prediction before. a specific prediction, not a vague one subject to interpretation. and then wait and see if it happens.but some of the bible code cranks are now saying that the codes contain many different predictions, and we only find which one was right AFTER. wonder why. 330 million gods? is that one per hindu? where do you get this stuff? then frankly, you are a sucker. great "predictions" can be made in a similar fashion in ANY work of significant length. mckay likes to make them using moby dick. he's found some great stuff about jesus and princess di in there.

---

maybe to you, but not to those of those who actually bother to read the rebuttals. ...do you even know what you're talking about?

---

have you ever heard of arguments from incredulity? and yet biologists do. i wonder if maybe they know more about biology than you do? miller likes to do it. quite often. here's one of the classic ones. let me know at what point you think it's obvious that behe's lost.This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 02-27-2006 04:46 PM

---