latest criticism of 'Bible codes'?

Religions > Atheism > latest criticism of 'Bible codes'?

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 1

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	"david ford"
Date:	18 Dec 2006 09:12:00 PM
Object:	latest criticism of 'Bible codes'?

I picked up a copy of the 2005 book _Bible Code Bombshell_.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0892216239/qid=1115750692/sr=8-2/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14?v=glance&s=books&n=507846&tag2=biblecodedigest
What's the latest criticism of the 'Bible codes'?
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
http://biblecodedigest.com/page.php/9
http://biblecodedigest.com/page.php/202
.

User: "david ford"
Title: was the killing of Dylan Walborn moral? immoral?	19 Dec 2006 09:03:46 AM

Dylan Walborn
http://www.dylanwalborn.com/
18 December 2005
Letting Dylan Go
The Denver Post
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1544691/posts
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Terri Schindler Schiavo story
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1115741978.820440.50060%40f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
not-PVS
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1115683914.394927.244340%40f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
what's the record for going without food and water?
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1166149186.503013.264040%4080g2000cwy.googlegroups.com
Haeckel and Buchner and a Darwinian, atheistic a-moral climate
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1118315214.069039.280490%40z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com
Robert J. Lifton's _The Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing and the
Psychology of Genocide_, page 62
http://www.mazal.org/Lifton/LiftonT062.htm
.

User: "Timberwoof"
Title: Re: latest criticism of 'Bible codes'?	18 Dec 2006 10:24:18 PM

In article
<dford3-1166497920.578586.192960@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:

1. The software people claim to use to find them isn't open-source. (If
I'm mistaken, I'd be happy to be corrected ... with the source.)
2. The specific Bible translations used aren't often given.
3. There are enough letters in any big book that you can search for and
find any patterns you want.
One of the reasons I want open-source bible Code software is so that I
can run it on other pieces of literature. I'll discover the Shakespeare
Code and prove that Christopher Marlowe really did write it all. Or find
precursors for the Lord of the Rings in it. I'll find that the Elder
Edda predicts North Sea oil, Ikea furniture stores, and that Saab
automobiles are inspired by Odin himself.
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
It's easy to say a war is so important your neighbor should go fight it for you.
.

User: "bowman"
Title: Re: latest criticism of 'Bible codes'?	19 Dec 2006 08:32:57 AM

Timberwoof wrote:

I'll find that the Elder
Edda predicts North Sea oil, Ikea furniture stores, and that Saab
automobiles are inspired by Odin himself.

Saabs, in truth, were inspired by Freya's wagon drawn by cats.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.

User: "rev.goetz"
Title: Re: latest criticism of 'Bible codes'?	18 Dec 2006 10:40:16 PM

Timberwoof wrote:

In article
<dford3-1166497920.578586.192960@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:

1. The software people claim to use to find them isn't open-source. (If
I'm mistaken, I'd be happy to be corrected ... with the source.)

2. The specific Bible translations used aren't often given.

3. There are enough letters in any big book that you can search for and
find any patterns you want.

One of the reasons I want open-source bible Code software is so that I
can run it on other pieces of literature. I'll discover the Shakespeare
Code and prove that Christopher Marlowe really did write it all. Or find
precursors for the Lord of the Rings in it. I'll find that the Elder
Edda predicts North Sea oil, Ikea furniture stores, and that Saab
automobiles are inspired by Odin himself.

Number "3" is the most critical. I am not a programmer, but wouldn't it
be easy to make a program that can skip equidistant spaces on a word
processing document to see what you can "discover'?
.

User: "Timberwoof"
Title: Re: latest criticism of 'Bible codes'?	19 Dec 2006 12:28:59 AM

In article <1166503216.459725.86630@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com>,
"rev.goetz" <jimgoetz316@yahoo.com> wrote:

Timberwoof wrote:

In article
<dford3-1166497920.578586.192960@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:

1. The software people claim to use to find them isn't open-source. (If
I'm mistaken, I'd be happy to be corrected ... with the source.)

2. The specific Bible translations used aren't often given.

3. There are enough letters in any big book that you can search for and
find any patterns you want.

One of the reasons I want open-source bible Code software is so that I
can run it on other pieces of literature. I'll discover the Shakespeare
Code and prove that Christopher Marlowe really did write it all. Or find
precursors for the Lord of the Rings in it. I'll find that the Elder
Edda predicts North Sea oil, Ikea furniture stores, and that Saab
automobiles are inspired by Odin himself.

Number "3" is the most critical. I am not a programmer, but wouldn't it
be easy to make a program that can skip equidistant spaces on a word
processing document to see what you can "discover'?

Anybody after first-year computer programming should be able to do write
a program that extracts every nth character from a file and appends it
to a new, blank file. It's handy to then break that text up into words
(by whitespace) and make a list of whatever real worlds it finds.
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
It's easy to say a war is so important your neighbor should go fight it for you.
.

User: "John Vreeland"
Title: Re: latest criticism of 'Bible codes'?	21 Dec 2006 07:29:59 AM

Timberwoof wrote:

In article <1166503216.459725.86630@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com>,
"rev.goetz" <jimgoetz316@yahoo.com> wrote:

Timberwoof wrote:

In article
<dford3-1166497920.578586.192960@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:

1. The software people claim to use to find them isn't open-source. (If
I'm mistaken, I'd be happy to be corrected ... with the source.)

2. The specific Bible translations used aren't often given.

3. There are enough letters in any big book that you can search for and
find any patterns you want.

One of the reasons I want open-source bible Code software is so that I
can run it on other pieces of literature. I'll discover the Shakespeare
Code and prove that Christopher Marlowe really did write it all. Or find
precursors for the Lord of the Rings in it. I'll find that the Elder
Edda predicts North Sea oil, Ikea furniture stores, and that Saab
automobiles are inspired by Odin himself.

Number "3" is the most critical. I am not a programmer, but wouldn't it
be easy to make a program that can skip equidistant spaces on a word
processing document to see what you can "discover'?

They ignore whitespace. And vowels; Hebrew is a particularly good
language for this for that reason.
The most direct way to test this nonsense is to repeat the experiment
on a control text, such as Moby ***** translated into Hebrew. Since the
authors of the article did not use controls (the absolute minimum
requirement for such an experiment) then you have to take their
conclusions with a pillar of salt.
.

User: "Mark VandeWettering"
Title: Re: latest criticism of 'Bible codes'?	18 Dec 2006 11:24:47 PM

["Followup-To:" header set to talk.origins.]
On 2006-12-19, david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:

This just in: it's crap!

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
http://biblecodedigest.com/page.php/9

Opponents of Bible codes say that you can find meaningful
clusters in any book. To support their case, they presented an
example of a code cluster about Hanukah they found in Tolstoy's
War and Peace.
While this example was fairly comparable to clusters Bible
code researchers had presented back then, our researchers have
unearthed clusters that look like mountains compared to the
molehill of the Hanukah example.
So, in other words, critics were right about the silliness of the previous
examples, but NOW, well NOW they have the REAL BIBLE CODES.
Yeah.

http://biblecodedigest.com/page.php/202

It's real! Really! Really really!
Mark
.

User: "david ford"
Title: Re: latest criticism of 'Bible codes'?	20 Dec 2006 07:52:44 AM

Mark VandeWettering wrote:

["Followup-To:" header set to talk.origins.]
On 2006-12-19, david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:

This just in: it's crap!

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
http://biblecodedigest.com/page.php/9

Opponents of Bible codes say that you can find meaningful
clusters in any book. To support their case, they presented an
example of a code cluster about Hanukah they found in Tolstoy's
War and Peace.

While this example was fairly comparable to clusters Bible
code researchers had presented back then, our researchers have
unearthed clusters that look like mountains compared to the
molehill of the Hanukah example.

So, in other words, critics were right about the silliness of the previous
examples, but NOW, well NOW they have the REAL BIBLE CODES.

Yeah.

Do you think the 1950s Miller-Urey experiments are currently silly?
If 'yes': are there any serious abiogenesis experiments that have
filled the void caused by the now-known "silliness of the previous"
Miller-Urey experiments?
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
atheism of the gaps
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1163208112.842963.215980%40f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
big gap in a purely naturalistic account of the world
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1163337742.608958.162710%40f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
An irrelevant "abiogenesis" paper,
4th up from the bottom of
Julie Thomas on biological design
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-329osfF3jopn9U1%40individual.net

http://biblecodedigest.com/page.php/202

It's real! Really! Really really!

What's the most-impressive of the discovered clusters? (perhaps you'll
say 'the Isaiah 53 cluster' or 'the Ezekial 37 cluster')
And what's the most devastating critique of that cluster?
.

User: "Mark VandeWettering"
Title: Re: latest criticism of 'Bible codes'?	20 Dec 2006 11:54:15 AM

["Followup-To:" header set to talk.origins.]
On 2006-12-20, david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:

Mark VandeWettering wrote:

["Followup-To:" header set to talk.origins.]
On 2006-12-19, david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:

This just in: it's crap!

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
http://biblecodedigest.com/page.php/9

Opponents of Bible codes say that you can find meaningful
clusters in any book. To support their case, they presented an
example of a code cluster about Hanukah they found in Tolstoy's
War and Peace.

While this example was fairly comparable to clusters Bible
code researchers had presented back then, our researchers have
unearthed clusters that look like mountains compared to the
molehill of the Hanukah example.

So, in other words, critics were right about the silliness of the previous
examples, but NOW, well NOW they have the REAL BIBLE CODES.

Yeah.

Do you think the 1950s Miller-Urey experiments are currently silly?

No.
I suppose you think these two things are in some way analogous. I wonder
why you would think that.

If 'yes': are there any serious abiogenesis experiments that have
filled the void caused by the now-known "silliness of the previous"
Miller-Urey experiments?

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
atheism of the gaps
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1163208112.842963.215980%40f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com

big gap in a purely naturalistic account of the world
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1163337742.608958.162710%40f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com

An irrelevant "abiogenesis" paper,
4th up from the bottom of
Julie Thomas on biological design
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-329osfF3jopn9U1%40individual.net

http://biblecodedigest.com/page.php/202

It's real! Really! Really really!

What's the most-impressive of the discovered clusters? (perhaps you'll
say 'the Isaiah 53 cluster' or 'the Ezekial 37 cluster')

Neither are impressive.

And what's the most devastating critique of that cluster?

I already gave you links.
Mark
.

User: "david ford"
Title: Re: latest criticism of 'Bible codes'?	24 Dec 2006 10:15:59 PM

Timberwoof wrote:

In article <te5so25ff9o9621q099i1888rc07gebouo@4ax.com>,
satyr <RsEaMtOyVrE@infidels.org> wrote:

That's cuz we just *know* those codes have to be there. It is just a
matter of finding a word salad sentence long enough to prove that it
can't be a coincidence.

http://biblecodedigest.com/page.php/202 is a fun page. I particularly
liked " ? Do textual differences invalidate codes or create
opportunities for additional codes?"

IOW, unlike ordinary error-correcting encoding schemes like what's on a
CD or DVD that just allow you to detect and compensate for copying
errors, Bible Codes, like the genetic code, can *gain* information with
errors in copying!

Are Bible Codes proof of the reality of the alleged powers of Darwinian
natural selection?
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Essay on Problems with Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.10005310900310.17702-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu
historical background to rise and fall of the Synthetic Euphoria; 1936
A. Franklin Shull
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0403271329.1e569adf%40posting.google.com
.

User: "Timberwoof"
Title: Re: latest criticism of 'Bible codes'?	24 Dec 2006 10:59:52 PM

In article
<dford3-1167020159.804867.81910@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:

Timberwoof wrote:

In article <te5so25ff9o9621q099i1888rc07gebouo@4ax.com>,
satyr <RsEaMtOyVrE@infidels.org> wrote:

That's cuz we just *know* those codes have to be there. It is just a
matter of finding a word salad sentence long enough to prove that it
can't be a coincidence.

Are Bible Codes proof of the reality of the alleged powers of Darwinian
natural selection?

ROFL!
David, your irony meter is broken.
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
It's easy to say a war is so important your neighbor should go fight it for you.
.

User: "david ford"
Title: Re: latest criticism of 'Bible codes'?	25 Dec 2006 07:40:10 AM

Timberwoof wrote:

In article
<dford3-1167020159.804867.81910@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:

Timberwoof wrote:

In article <te5so25ff9o9621q099i1888rc07gebouo@4ax.com>,
satyr <RsEaMtOyVrE@infidels.org> wrote:

That's cuz we just *know* those codes have to be there. It is just a
matter of finding a word salad sentence long enough to prove that it
can't be a coincidence.

Are Bible Codes proof of the reality of the alleged powers of Darwinian
natural selection?

ROFL!

David, your irony meter is broken.

I've given up on them-- they keep breaking.
What are 2 of the better lines of evidence showing the reality of the
alleged powers of Darwinian natural selection?
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
One literature search for "mutation"; mutation URLs
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-37elv4F5260vbU1%40individual.net
1922 Bateson, Lerner, Orwell
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990810225527.4089209B-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
1922 Bateson, Gould on the major synthesists, 1982 Saunders & Ho
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990131235540.126906A-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
1916 Caullery: "data of Mendelism embarrass us"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0403191919.590c22e3%40posting.google.com
do ORFans fit into a nested hierarchy?
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1165334818.498006.131640%40f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
1958 Eiseley on "careful domestic breeding"; 1863 Darwin: "the belief
in Natural Selection must at present be grounded entirely on general
considerations"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0405130534.8eee3f1%40posting.google.com
Essay on Problems with Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.10005310900310.17702-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu
.

User: "Timberwoof"
Title: Re: latest criticism of 'Bible codes'?	25 Dec 2006 12:44:33 PM

In article
<dford3-1167054010.724125.198290@48g2000cwx.googlegroups.com>,
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:

Timberwoof wrote:

In article
<dford3-1167020159.804867.81910@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:

Timberwoof wrote:

In article <te5so25ff9o9621q099i1888rc07gebouo@4ax.com>,
satyr <RsEaMtOyVrE@infidels.org> wrote:

That's cuz we just *know* those codes have to be there. It is just a
matter of finding a word salad sentence long enough to prove that it
can't be a coincidence.

Are Bible Codes proof of the reality of the alleged powers of Darwinian
natural selection?

ROFL!

David, your irony meter is broken.

I've given up on them-- they keep breaking.

What are 2 of the better lines of evidence showing the reality of the
alleged powers of Darwinian natural selection?

1. The whole genetics thing along with background radioactivity,
environmental chemicals, and inefficiencies in reproductive enzymes
leading to errors in DNA duplication.
2. The ability if human farmers to alter the form of domesticated plants
and animals showing that it can and does happen and all those fossils
indicating that the forms of species changed over time showing that it
did.
None of which has any bearing on the business of Bible Code theory,
which now handily turns a bug into a feature.
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
It's easy to say a war is so important your neighbor should go fight it for you.
.

User: "Augray"
Title: Re: latest criticism of 'Bible codes'?	26 Dec 2006 06:44:46 AM

On 24 Dec 2006 20:15:59 -0800, "david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote
in <dford3-1167020159.804867.81910@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> :

Timberwoof wrote:

In article <te5so25ff9o9621q099i1888rc07gebouo@4ax.com>,
satyr <RsEaMtOyVrE@infidels.org> wrote:

That's cuz we just *know* those codes have to be there. It is just a
matter of finding a word salad sentence long enough to prove that it
can't be a coincidence.

A useless essay, since it confuses Gradualism with Natural Selection.
[snip]
.

User: "Richo"
Title: Re: latest criticism of 'Bible codes'?	18 Dec 2006 10:54:14 PM

david ford wrote:

No need for any new criticism as the old criticism works just fine.
There is nothing special in the text of the bible - you can find
"hidden" messages in Moby *****.
It's not magic - just statistics.
Mark.
.

User: "rev.goetz"
Title: Re: latest criticism of 'Bible codes'?	18 Dec 2006 11:18:39 PM

Richo wrote:

david ford wrote:

No need for any new criticism as the old criticism works just fine.
There is nothing special in the text of the bible - you can find
"hidden" messages in Moby *****.
It's not magic - just statistics.

What is the best documentation of this?
.

User: "Mujin"
Title: Re: latest criticism of 'Bible codes'?	18 Dec 2006 11:27:53 PM

In article <1166505519.393739.318700@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com>,
jimgoetz316@yahoo.com says...

Richo wrote:

david ford wrote:

No need for any new criticism as the old criticism works just fine.
There is nothing special in the text of the bible - you can find
"hidden" messages in Moby *****.
It's not magic - just statistics.

What is the best documentation of this?

http://www.math.washington.edu/~greenber/BibleCode.html
.

User: "Mark VandeWettering"
Title: Re: latest criticism of 'Bible codes'?	19 Dec 2006 10:45:02 AM

["Followup-To:" header set to talk.origins.]
On 2006-12-19, rev.goetz <jimgoetz316@yahoo.com> wrote:

Richo wrote:

david ford wrote:

No need for any new criticism as the old criticism works just fine.
There is nothing special in the text of the bible - you can find
"hidden" messages in Moby *****.
It's not magic - just statistics.

What is the best documentation of this?

http://cs.anu.edu.au/~bdm/dilugim/StatSci/
A paper of Witztum, Rips and Rosenberg in this journal in 1994 made
the extraordinary claim that the Hebrew text of the Book of Genesis
encodes events which did not occur until millennia after the text was
written. In reply, we argue that Witztum, Rips and Rosenberg's case
is fatally defective, indeed that their result merely reflects on the
choices made in designing their experiment and collecting the data for
it. We present extensive evidence in support of that conclusion. We also
report on many new experiments of our own, all of which failed to detect
the alleged phenomenon.
The page includes the statement:
In this place we will reference serious critiques of our paper,
and sometimes comment on them. Readers should be aware that
our paper is not an opening gambit, but a summary of years of
investigation that included extensive debates with Witztum and
Rips. We do not feel obliged to reply to every recycled quibble,
especially to those already answered in our paper.
But goes on to actually discuss some modern quibbles, and more recent
results.
.

User: "david ford"
Title: Re: latest criticism of 'Bible codes'?	19 Dec 2006 09:41:01 PM

Mark VandeWettering wrote:

["Followup-To:" header set to talk.origins.]
On 2006-12-19, rev.goetz <jimgoetz316@yahoo.com> wrote:

Richo wrote:

david ford wrote:

No need for any new criticism as the old criticism works just fine.
There is nothing special in the text of the bible - you can find
"hidden" messages in Moby *****.
It's not magic - just statistics.

What is the best documentation of this?

http://cs.anu.edu.au/~bdm/dilugim/StatSci/

Thanks.
This is funny:
http://cs.anu.edu.au/~bdm/dilugim/StatSci/
Witztum has replied to our analysis of variations,
arguing that it is either invalid or proves something
different from what we claim. Our reply shows
where his errors are while nevertheless questioning
one of our own previous conclusions. (Note: both
Witztum's and our papers on this subject require
deep knowledge of the background and some
mathematical expertise.) (March 2002)

A paper of Witztum, Rips and Rosenberg in this journal in 1994 made
the extraordinary claim that the Hebrew text of the Book of Genesis
encodes events which did not occur until millennia after the text was
written. In reply, we argue that Witztum, Rips and Rosenberg's case
is fatally defective, indeed that their result merely reflects on the
choices made in designing their experiment and collecting the data for
it. We present extensive evidence in support of that conclusion. We also
report on many new experiments of our own, all of which failed to detect
the alleged phenomenon.

The page includes the statement:

In this place we will reference serious critiques of our paper,
and sometimes comment on them. Readers should be aware that
our paper is not an opening gambit, but a summary of years of
investigation that included extensive debates with Witztum and
Rips. We do not feel obliged to reply to every recycled quibble,
especially to those already answered in our paper.

But goes on to actually discuss some modern quibbles, and more recent
results.

User: "JTEM"
Title: Re: latest criticism of 'Bible codes'?	19 Dec 2006 05:20:36 AM

rev.goetz wrote:

Richo wrote:

No need for any new criticism as the old criticism works
just fine. There is nothing special in the text of the bible
- you can find "hidden" messages in Moby *****. It's not
magic - just statistics.

What is the best documentation of this?

Google:
Results 1 - 10 of about 591 for "bible codes" "moby *****". (0.15
seconds)
[---snip results---]
Never ask a question you could have answered yourself in less time.
.

User: "david ford"
Title: Re: latest criticism of 'Bible codes'?	19 Dec 2006 08:45:47 PM

Richo wrote:

david ford wrote:

No need for any new criticism as the old criticism works just fine.
There is nothing special in the text of the bible - you can find
"hidden" messages in Moby *****.
It's not magic - just statistics.

What's the "old criticism" of this particular journal article?:
Witztum, Doron, Eliyahu Rips and Yoav Rosenberg. 1994. "Equidistant
Letter Sequences in the Book of Genesis" _Statistical Science_ 9:
429-438. Sans "Appendix: Details of the Procedure" and some diagrams
and tables, at
http://www.answering-islam.org/Religions/Numerics/genesis.html
On 434:
We conclude that the proximity of ELS's with related
meanings in the Book of Genesis is not due to chance.
.

User: "david ford"
Title: Re: latest criticism of 'Bible codes'?	19 Dec 2006 09:04:21 PM

Witztum, Doron, Eliyahu Rips and Yoav Rosenberg. 1994. "Equidistant
Letter Sequences in the Book of Genesis" _Statistical Science_ 9:
429-438. Sans "Appendix: Details of the Procedure" and some diagrams
and tables, at
http://www.answering-islam.org/Religions/Numerics/genesis.html
On 434:
We conclude that the proximity of ELS's with related
meanings in the Book of Genesis is not due to chance.

Better URL:
http://cs.anu.edu.au/~bdm/dilugim/Nations/WRR2/index.html
.

User: "JTEM"
Title: Re: latest criticism of 'Bible codes'?	18 Dec 2006 09:58:10 PM

david ford wrote:

What's the latest criticism of the 'Bible codes'?

Latest? Please.
As soon as it moved from "looks like *****" to
"completely refuted & revealed as the scam that
it is," there really was no need to keep further tabs.
.

User: "david ford"
Title: Re: latest criticism of 'Bible codes'?	19 Dec 2006 09:23:40 PM

JTEM wrote:

david ford wrote:

What's the latest criticism of the 'Bible codes'?

Latest? Please.

As soon as it moved from "looks like *****" to
"completely refuted & revealed as the scam that
it is," there really was no need to keep further tabs.

Have these 2 articles been "completely refuted" in the peer-reviewed
scientific literature?:
Witztum, Doron, Eliyahu Rips, and Yoav Rosenberg. 1994. "Equidistant
Letter Sequences in the Book of Genesis" _Statistical Science_ 9:
429-438. Sans "Appendix: Details of the Procedure" and some diagrams
and tables, at
http://www.answering-islam.org/Religions/Numerics/genesis.html
On 434:
We conclude that the proximity of ELS's with related
meanings in the Book of Genesis is not due to chance.
Witztum, Doron, Eliyahu Rips, and Yoav Rosenberg. "Equidistant Letter
Sequences in the Book of Genesis: II. The Relation to the Text"
http://cs.anu.edu.au/~bdm/dilugim/Nations/WRR2/index.html

From the abstract:

Randomization analysis is done for three samples.
For one of them the effect is significant at the level
of .000000004.
What does that last line mean?
.

User: "Mark VandeWettering"
Title: Re: latest criticism of 'Bible codes'?	20 Dec 2006 11:52:27 AM

["Followup-To:" header set to talk.origins.]
On 2006-12-20, david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:

JTEM wrote:

david ford wrote:

What's the latest criticism of the 'Bible codes'?

Latest? Please.

As soon as it moved from "looks like *****" to
"completely refuted & revealed as the scam that
it is," there really was no need to keep further tabs.

Have these 2 articles been "completely refuted" in the peer-reviewed
scientific literature?:

Yes. By the articles that I gave you.

Witztum, Doron, Eliyahu Rips, and Yoav Rosenberg. 1994. "Equidistant
Letter Sequences in the Book of Genesis" _Statistical Science_ 9:
429-438. Sans "Appendix: Details of the Procedure" and some diagrams
and tables, at
http://www.answering-islam.org/Religions/Numerics/genesis.html
On 434:
We conclude that the proximity of ELS's with related
meanings in the Book of Genesis is not due to chance.

Witztum, Doron, Eliyahu Rips, and Yoav Rosenberg. "Equidistant Letter
Sequences in the Book of Genesis: II. The Relation to the Text"
http://cs.anu.edu.au/~bdm/dilugim/Nations/WRR2/index.html

From the abstract:

Randomization analysis is done for three samples.
For one of them the effect is significant at the level
of .000000004.

What does that last line mean?

Nothing.
Mark
.

User: "david ford"
Title: meaning of "the effect is significant at the level of .000000004"?	20 Dec 2006 05:07:16 PM

Mark VandeWettering wrote in Re: latest criticism of 'Bible codes'?:

["Followup-To:" header set to talk.origins.]
On 2006-12-20, david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:

JTEM wrote:

david ford wrote:

What's the latest criticism of the 'Bible codes'?

Latest? Please.

As soon as it moved from "looks like *****" to
"completely refuted & revealed as the scam that
it is," there really was no need to keep further tabs.

Have these 2 articles been "completely refuted" in the peer-reviewed
scientific literature?:

Yes. By the articles that I gave you.

Namely, articles at
http://cs.anu.edu.au/~bdm/dilugim/StatSci/

What does that last line mean?

Nothing.

User: "josephus"
Title: Re: meaning of "the effect is significant at the level of .000000004"?	20 Dec 2006 10:44:07 PM

david ford wrote:

Mark VandeWettering wrote in Re: latest criticism of 'Bible codes'?:

["Followup-To:" header set to talk.origins.]
On 2006-12-20, david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:

JTEM wrote:

david ford wrote:

What's the latest criticism of the 'Bible codes'?

Latest? Please.

As soon as it moved from "looks like *****" to
"completely refuted & revealed as the scam that
it is," there really was no need to keep further tabs.

Have these 2 articles been "completely refuted" in the peer-reviewed
scientific literature?:

Yes. By the articles that I gave you.

Namely, articles at
http://cs.anu.edu.au/~bdm/dilugim/StatSci/

What does that last line mean?

Think of it as the exact correspondce I.E. no correspondence in
effect NOTHING.

What does that last line mean?

Nothing.

josephus
I AM CAPTAIN IGNORANCE
who are you?
.

User: "JTEM"
Title: Re: latest criticism of 'Bible codes'?	21 Dec 2006 07:09:27 AM

david ford wrote:

What does that last line mean?

Someone has *Way* too much free time on
their hands.
.

User: "Bodega"
Title: Re: latest criticism of 'Bible codes'?	19 Dec 2006 12:30:43 AM

david ford wrote:
[excerpt]
No need for new criticism. It has as much validity as Word Finder in
those puzzle books at the supermarket.
-- Mike Palmer
.

Page 1 of 1

Post reply

Re: OT - Latest Luey Catches
Kennyboy's Latest Ploy
France and the USA ~ What's the latest fuss ?
Latest E-mail
Installment #3: the latest TOP TEN LIST OF ATHEIST BUFFOONS who can't get their basic historical facts straight
Re: Latest from Colson on ID
Latest Muse letter from Richard Heinberg
Family Research Council's latest "Research Conclusions"

Latest raning from the Family Research Council -- June 17, 2004
The collective response to the latest win
More on latest Scientology killing
the big idea Behind Bush's latest assault on the press.
The Latest Developments Regarding Flores Man
text of latest pledge decision
Re: PROOF THAT LIBERALS HATE AMERICA!!!!!!! ==> Bush bombs in latest Fox News poll!!!!!

NEWER

pg.3585 pg.2749 pg.2106 pg.1612 pg.1232 pg.940 pg.716 pg.544 pg.412 pg.311 pg.234 pg.175 pg.130 pg.96 pg.70 pg.50 pg.35 pg.24 pg.16 pg.10 pg.6 pg.3 pg.1

OLDER