the bible code.....hoax?

[Illusional]

hahahahahahaha... freaking myth busters!!!

raverboy

[ecojeanne]

I assume you are talking about this bible code [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_code[/url] Using this genious system of decoding



In case you don't know, Australian scinetists used the same bible code system of decoding on a Vanilla Ice song Ice Ice Baby and a US government financial report.

The findings were startling. It turned out Ice Ice Baby predicted 9/11 and the financial report predicted the end of Vanilla Ice's career. This type of decoding must be very reliable.

yep this is true, the researchers have said in response is that they now since use a more concise and so called'impossible' to manipulate methods. the odds are millions upon millions to one aparently. i think it was an australian mathamatician called mckay that decoded vanilla ice song (that was funny) and he is very much against proof of the code.

this is a battle of the scientists and mathamaticians.

the most recent update 2005 is in wikipedia noted:

Adlerstein (one of the most vocal skeptics) noted that Aumann (20 year researcher of the code and winner of the nobel prize in economics) had come to the conclusion that the codes could neither be proven nor could they be disproven with the scientific methods employed to date.

these are highly regarded scientists that can't agree that the code is real or not still years later after research......it's interesting don't ya think?

[Only-virgins]

the conclusion that the codes could neither be proven nor could they be disproven with the scientific methods employed to date.

So that's it eh folks? Once again the argument becomes the piece of crap that is an agnostic. Personally no evidence for something is equal to evidence against it for me. If you can't prove it than no one needs to disprove it...it doesn't exist unless proven otherwise.

[boobaa]

How dare you, OV! Its Gods creation, he doesn't need to prove it!

[Mish]

yep this is true, the researchers have said in response is that they now since use a more concise and so called'impossible' to manipulate methods. the odds are millions upon millions to one aparently.

I would very much like to see this new, more concise and "impossible" to manipulate method. One would assume it would have to be manipulated in some way in the first place to derive some sort of meaning from the "code". Please post a link to it.

[IndiReloaded]

If you scan the correct series of characters from this forum, one comes up with the formula for warp drive. And a recipe for a mean Philly Steak sandwich.

Cool, eh? Science rocks!


Given enough time & a big enough pool, brute force computation can find patterns in almost anything. Read about 'Shakespeares Monkey Theorem' if you want to know more.

[ecojeanne]

I would very much like to see this new, more concise and "impossible" to manipulate method. One would assume it would have to be manipulated in some way in the first place to derive some sort of meaning from the "code". Please post a link to it.

i'm not saying i personally know or have seen it mish...haha...this is what the researchers are saying. trying to force 'facts' out of me that i wouldn't have access to let alone anyone else here on LF who's not involved in the research????...

anyway i had question for you....i'm figuring that you don't believe, i can't decide whether i believe or not. but my question is would you like or prefer to believe the code or would you like or prefer for it to be a hoax?

[IndiReloaded]

I would very much like to see this new, more concise and "impossible" to manipulate method. One would assume it would have to be manipulated in some way in the first place to derive some sort of meaning from the "code". Please post a link to it.

Hey, Mish, you wouldn't happen to know anything about computer algorithms and computational methods, would you?

For the uninformed, scientists who make reports on their work do not hide their data. Its all available publicly & most of it is available online. Someone who did well with a BSc in a relevant field would be able to understand their work.

[ecojeanne]

Given enough time & a big enough pool, brute force computation can find patterns in almost anything. Read about 'Shakespeares Monkey Theorem' if you want to know more.

out of interest i did have a look in wikipedia. now i didn't bother reading the whole lot but the conclusion was that it is flawed in experiments. shakepeare came up with this right? before there were type writers...anyway aparently the monkeys don't come up with anything but a whole pile of typed 'ssssss' for pages. funny theory tho.

[IndiReloaded]

Yes, wikipedia. A fine resource often cited by scientists.

Wiki is only good for ppl like yourself, Eco, who want a superficial overview of a topic. Its not bad for a start. Its certainly much better than it was years ago, but it is usually lacking in any in-depth analysis, simply b/c most ppl aren't interested & can research further should they choose.

Are you seriously wanting to have a debate on here about the Monkey Theorem? Do you have a comp sci background? B/c there are LOTS of ppl here on this site that do that will pwn your ass for even bringing it up.

[ecojeanne]

Are you seriously wanting to have a debate on here about the Monkey Theorem? Do you have a comp sci background? B/c there are LOTS of ppl here on this site that do.

no i don't really care but you suggested to look it up on this discussion thread...so i did.... whats wrong with that?

are you looking for a non-existent argument with me? haha

[IndiReloaded]

shakepeare came up with this right? before there were type writers...anyway aparently the monkeys don't come up with anything but a whole pile of typed 'ssssss' for pages. funny theory tho.

Um, no. Shakespeare did NOT come up with this, btw. I don't think you understood what you read.

I'm going to leave this to the very knowledgeable comp sci folks on here. Mbe you should just ask (nicely) if they will explain what they know.

[ecojeanne]

Um, no. Shakespeare did NOT come up with this, btw. I don't think you understood what you read.

I'm going to leave this to the very knowledgeable comp sci folks on here. Mbe you should just ask (nicely) if they will explain what they know.

i don't care enough, but i think you're a bit miffed that wikipedia said the monkeys failed in experiments concluding the theory was flawed....i don't care enough haha

wikipedia's all i got....do you not like wikipedia? whats wrong with it for an up to date quick reference? i like it.

and you did say 'look it up' and not everyone on LF who reads this topic is a scientist etc etc.....bla bla bla...concluding you are a fantastic scientist/more educated bla bla bla

[IndiReloaded]

no i don't really care but you suggested to look it up on this discussion thread...so i did.... whats wrong with that?

Absolutely nothing. I applaud your attempts to try and learn something.

Not all ideas are created equal. Particularly with the internet, we are bombarded with trivia and poorly thought out ideas all the time. The true value in educating oneself isn't about the data anymore, data storage & retrieval is trivial, its about being able to evaluate it quickly and accurately. What I find disturbing about you is that you don't seem to be getting any better at separating cream from shit, which is the ultimate point for thinking about such things.

I'm just here to do some QC, that's all. I hate to break it to ya, but I care far less than you think (about you) just the quality of what others might read.

and you did say 'look it up' and not everyone on LF who reads this topic is a scientist etc etc.....bla bla bla...concluding you are a fantastic scientist/more educated bla bla bla

Most ppl on here (except you, apparently) has some kind of expertise. I know it must bite, but yes, I do know a lot about science. We also have physicians, nurses, IT specialists, accountants, engineers, business folk, artists... on here. Try not to let your jealousy get the best of you, Eco. It shows.

[ecojeanne]

What I find disturbing about you is that you don't seem to be getting any better at separating cream from shit, which is the ultimate point for thinking about such things.

I'm just here to do some QC, that's all. I hate to break it to ya, but I care far less than you think (about you) just the quality of what others might read.

thats a bit contradictory....tbo indi this discussion is not about you or me, i thought you might have had something interesting with the monkey theory....you didn't.....so moving on to topic....not that trying to argue with me isn't more important to you!.....

topic question: would you prefer to believe it's a hoax or would you prefer to believe it's true?