Her Fluxive Eyes

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Like a train wreck, ain't it?

I guess that makes you a rubber-necking purveyor of deprivation, dunnit? How does that make you feel?

Fine thanks. You really are not up to this are you? You really want to live in a fairyland where everybody sings hymns and speculates about the mysteries of the Book of Revelations.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
A guy programmed a computer to randomly type 39-character lines to try to hit on Hamlet's "To be or not to be, that is the question." After about a week, the computer's best was:

ujgdEjOxeNOTejOtmbgTanglrcpqbglUzSTIzg

The 12 capitalized correct letters plus one space figure to a success rate of 33 percent (13 of 39). A quick probability calculation ...[text shortened]... Bill Sones and Rich Sones, Ph.D.

QUESTION: How old did we say the universe is, again?

Hamlet's To Be or Not To Be soliloquy was not typed at random by a mindless machine, but written in the context of a particular drama, in the context of a writer's career, in the context of Elizabethan drama etc. In short it was written by an intelligent man in a social context. The odds of Shakespeare writing this soliloquy remain very low but not at the level of a team of monkeys or a computer randomly producing letter sequences. In retrospect, it is actually still surprising - he is constantly surprising us - but it is not hard to accept that he did. So the probabilities are not comparable.

When making analogies it is important to be clear what they are telling us. Life is confusing enough without trying to have a pseudo logical debate about a false premise. We do not need to debate something that has never happened and probably never will - a random letter sequence matching the Hamlet soliloquy - but something that has indeed happened - Shakespeare did it. Though I have read a persuasive argument that Christopher Marlowe did.

As regard the universe, Einstein protested that "God does not play with dice," but the evidence was against him and we know that nobody has yet undone the damage from Quantum Mechanics. Similarly, Darwin really wanted to support the "Argument from Design" but was drive through not years but decades of experiment and structured observation to the conclusion which he hated and struggled against, that random chance was the best explanation for the evolution of species. We now know how that random process operates in the gene and it is not at all mysterious. Many scientists, including the very greatest, would dearly love to discover design rather than chance and would be delighted to report their discovery if they could ever overcome the sheer weight of evidence in favour of randomness.

FreakyKBH is of course aware of a debate on a separate thread about this very topic : http://www.timeforchess.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=129761&page=14

Originally posted by finnegan
Fine thanks. You really are not up to this are you? You really want to live in a fairyland where everybody sings hymns and speculates about the mysteries of the Book of Revelations.

"Up to this?" Up to what, in your mind? Am I not the one who started the thread--- the one you joined several days afterwards, the one you've not yet contributed to other than by posting babble about freaking conspiracies related to the authorship of Hamlet? Are you so self-absorbed, so self-deceived so bent on justifying your indefensible position, you've nothing left other than to flick your boogars at passersby?

Singing hymns related to doctrine is no waste of time; I find the same very comforting. Sadly, most hymns are void of the necessary ingredient to make them worthwhile. These hymns I avoid. What do you sing?

Originally posted by finnegan
Hamlet's To Be or Not To Be soliloquy was not typed at random by a mindless machine, but written in the context of a particular drama, in the context of a writer's career, in the context of Elizabethan drama etc. In short it was written by an intelligent man in a social context. The odds of Shakespeare writing this soliloquy remain very low but not at the l ...[text shortened]... this very topic : http://www.timeforchess.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=129761&page=14

FreakyKBH is of course aware of a debate on a separate thread about this very topic : http://www.timeforchess.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=129761&page=14
And your authority for declaring this is... ? Although I was engaged in the initial (first couple of days) of the thread, I haven't followed its progression over the past month-plus. Are you that desperate to show me in a unfavorable light as to lie? Shame on you, Mr. finnegan.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
A guy programmed a computer to randomly type 39-character lines to try to hit on Hamlet's "To be or not to be, that is the question." After about a week, the computer's best was:

ujgdEjOxeNOTejOtmbgTanglrcpqbglUzSTIzg

The 12 capitalized correct letters plus one space figure to a success rate of 33 percent (13 of 39). A quick probability calculation ...[text shortened]... Bill Sones and Rich Sones, Ph.D.

QUESTION: How old did we say the universe is, again?

But if you had a computer that could do 1 billion billion billion billion billion tries per second it would have the job done in 100 seconds. Try to put that in perspective. Computers get faster all the time and if quantum computers are ever actualized, it may only take a millisecond.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]FreakyKBH is of course aware of a debate on a separate thread about this very topic : http://www.timeforchess.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=129761&page=14
And your authority for declaring this is... ? Although I was engaged in the initial (first couple of days) of the thread, I haven't followed its progression over the past month-plus. Are you that desperate to show me in a unfavorable light as to lie? Shame on you, Mr. finnegan.[/b]

You are in danger of taking over carrobies' spot on here. I'm sure you hate to be compared to others, but really, look at your posting history

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I feel your pain. Suffer in silence, though, will ya?

OK. I'll leave the thread alone as it is making you look bad and you just cant stand admitting your mistakes.
What I don't get is how you expect to convert people to Christianity by making up lies, and making yourself look stupid. Most of the atheists who participate on these forums are well educated and reasonably intelligent and wont be taken it that easily. But since you are not man enough to actually admit your mistakes, I'll just suffer in silence.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
"Up to this?" Up to what, in your mind? Am I not the one who started the thread--- the one you joined several days afterwards, the one you've not yet contributed to other than by posting babble about freaking conspiracies related to the authorship of Hamlet? Are you so self-absorbed, so self-deceived so bent on justifying your indefensible position, you' ...[text shortened]... f the necessary ingredient to make them worthwhile. These hymns I avoid. What do you sing?

My response to your original post was relevant and I am content that it makes its point well.

I regret that you display a persistent pattern of becoming unpleasant and insulting in response to reasonable contributions to what is a public, not a private forum. My retaliation was at a level that I consider appropriate - to wit, I was rude in return because you invited rudeness. What other reply would you expect and what effect would it have?

I am not likely to obtain from you any reasoned response when your own silly arguments are exposed but it amuses me to demonstrate their folly all the same. Your post seeks to debate what another poster has accurately called a "straw man."

Originally posted by twhitehead
OK. I'll leave the thread alone as it is making you look bad and you just cant stand admitting your mistakes.
What I don't get is how you expect to convert people to Christianity by making up lies, and making yourself look stupid. Most of the atheists who participate on these forums are well educated and reasonably intelligent and wont be taken it that e ...[text shortened]... ut since you are not man enough to actually admit your mistakes, I'll just suffer in silence.

I'll leave the thread alone as it is making you look bad and you just cant stand admitting your mistakes.
Awfully charitable of you, since your primary goal is just that: to refute the Christian position by making the person's position appear stupid. In fact, this is just what you've attempted to do here, but have failed to do anything other than insist you've destroyed a point despite all indications otherwise.

The only mistake I've made in the presentation is assuming you'd play by the rules. When a person refuses to acknowledge the obvious truth of a matter, but rather contents themselves with twisting and manipulating basic meanings of words, truly no point can be made... at least, no point other than their intransigence.

What I don't get is how you expect to convert people to Christianity by making up lies, and making yourself look stupid.
Looking stupid doesn't really bother me too much. However, despite your assertion otherwise, you've yet to show where I've lied about anything herein.

Most of the atheists who participate on these forums are well educated and reasonably intelligent and wont be taken it that easily.
Agreed in the first part, ambivalent on the second. After all, they are atheists, right?

But since you are not man enough to actually admit your mistakes, I'll just suffer in silence.
Great parting shot. Sounds familiar, for some reason.

Originally posted by finnegan
My response to your original post was relevant and I am content that it makes its point well.

I regret that you display a persistent pattern of becoming unpleasant and insulting in response to reasonable contributions to what is a public, not a private forum. My retaliation was at a level that I consider appropriate - to wit, I was rude in return becaus ...[text shortened]... the same. Your post seeks to debate what another poster has accurately called a "straw man."

I am not likely to obtain from you any reasoned response when your own silly arguments are exposed but it amuses me to demonstrate their folly all the same.
Have a nice day.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
In fact, this is just what you've attempted to do here, but have failed to do anything other than insist you've destroyed a point despite all indications otherwise.

You expect me to keep quiet, but cant help making comments yourself? If you really want me to leave this thread alone, then please refrain from replying to any of my posts, or attacking any of my arguments. It is unfair to attack my arguments when you have asked me leave the thread alone and not to defend said arguments.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
However, despite your assertion otherwise, you've yet to show where I've lied about anything herein.

Correct. I have not proved beyond a doubt that your a liar. But both of us know that you are. The only question is, why do you do it? And why, oh why, do you find it so hard to admit your errors.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You expect me to keep quiet, but cant help making comments yourself? If you really want me to leave this thread alone, then please refrain from replying to any of my posts, or attacking any of my arguments. It is unfair to attack my arguments when you have asked me leave the thread alone and not to defend said arguments.

It is unfair to attack my arguments when you have asked me leave the thread alone and not to defend said arguments.
Ah, I see even in leaving you resort to lying. Show the spot where I asked you to leave the thread. What I did ask was for you to be honest in your responses instead of playing silly word games that serve nothing other than confusion.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Ah, I see even in leaving you resort to lying. Show the spot where I asked you to leave the thread. What I did ask was for you to be honest in your responses instead of playing silly word games that serve nothing other than confusion.

Oh? You could have been a bit clearer. I really cant see how what you say here could be understood by what you said earlier:
I feel your pain. Suffer in silence, though, will ya?

And that in response to me asking some very genuine questions.

In case you have forgotten the situation:
I suggested that the OP was a strawman.
I pointed out that we both agree that nature does not operate via pure randomness.
You then responded with a whole lot of quotes from people who supposedly do think nature operate via pure randomness, but when I challenged the quotes you claimed ignorance of the original reason for posting them. You then decided to tell me to 'suffer in silence'.
My only guess is that you simply cannot admit when you have made a mistake.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Oh? You could have been a bit clearer. I really cant see how what you say here could be understood by what you said earlier:
[b]I feel your pain. Suffer in silence, though, will ya?

And that in response to me asking some very genuine questions.

In case you have forgotten the situation:
I suggested that the OP was a strawman.
I pointed out tha ...[text shortened]... ffer in silence'.
My only guess is that you simply cannot admit when you have made a mistake.[/b]

Jesus Christ never lied.