Speaking in 'tongues'

[Outrider]

Put it on your prayer list also add Lord make evolution true.

         ~TW~

How many times... Evolution is not in doubt, evolution is not in question, evolution is not 'only a theory'.

Evolution is a demonstrable fact, we have documentary records of it happening in the laboratory and in the wild - every time we get an anti-biotic resistant strain of an infection evolution has happened.

The Theory of Evolution is an incredibly well supported but still technically provisional explanation for HOW evolution happens, but not WHETHER evolution happens.

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi NS,

Due to the wonders of search engines, I think that what DaveM is talking about is referred to below

http://www.bereanpublishers.com/the-odds-of-eight-messianic-prophecies-coming-true/

Well spotted. Due to just the same wonders, it's easy enough too to find various articles that debunk the claims. Here for example:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2012/08/probability-proves-bible-prophecy-or-not/

[bluehillside Retd.]

Outy,

How many times... Evolution is not in doubt, evolution is not in question, evolution is not 'only a theory'.

Oh stop it now. Don’t you know that TW has a book – a real book for Pete’s sake – written back in 1909 by a Reverend (a Reverend mind you!) with no known scientific knowledge of any kind that tells him otherwise?

There you go then – evolution schmevolution!

[Nearly Sane]

Hi NS,

Due to the wonders of search engines, I think that what DaveM is talking about is referred to below

http://www.bereanpublishers.com/the-odds-of-eight-messianic-prophecies-coming-true/

Well spotted. Due to just the same wonders, it's easy enough too to find various articles that debunk the claims. Here for example:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2012/08/probability-proves-bible-prophecy-or-not/

I note that the work does not appear to be published in a respected journal (at least based on the supportive article) and that the generally favourable review given by the American Scientific Affiliation does not make clear that it is an Affiliation of Christians.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

I note that the work does not appear to be published in a respected journal (at least based on the supportive article) and that the generally favourable review given by the American Scientific Affiliation does not make clear that it is an Affiliation of Christians.

But but - that would be unethical wouldn't it?

Don't Christians do the darndest things eh?

[Nearly Sane]

The assignment of probability in the first prophecy in the article is frankly bizarre. Why would you take the population of the world at any given time to be something you calculate the likelihood of someone being a rule rule of Israel?

I predict the next Prime Minister of the UK will have attended an English public school (which is a much clearer, more specific prediction than the one being argued for). Would it be sensible to apportion the likelihood of that against the entire population of th world? If not then dear dead Prof Stoner and his classes and the American Science Affiliation were not even within Warp factor 10 to the power of 17 of using a sensible method.

[Nearly Sane]

Even worse as you look at the method is that the use of multiplication of each set of odds is bad stats. It would be like I took a set of 'prophecies' from the Racing Post, removed any context and then used them about the winner of a specific race. By the simple laws of multiplication, even if each of those had a 1/10 chance (much smaller than any of the calculations in the book) we would be at 1 in a hundred million.

[Gordon]

The approach used raised questions that immediately ring alarm bells. For instance, from the link that NS quotes we read this:

On page 71 Stoner notes, “I am making use of the well-known principle of probability. If the chance of one thing happening is one in M and the chance of another, and independent thing happening is one in N, then the chance that they both shall happen is one in M times N. …Suppose one man in every ten is bald, and one man in 100 has lost a finger, then one man in every 1,000 ( the product of 10 and 100) is both bald and has lost a finger.”

This raises two immediate questions;

1. How have the estimations of baldness and finger loss been obtained: what were the samples sizes and what sampling methods were used.

2. Since we are asked to accept that one man in every 1000 is both bald and digitally disadvantaged what is the strength of the correlation between these characteristics, how was this calculated and what was value of 'p'.

On first glance it appears incredibly simplistic, which no doubt increases its appeal to the credulous. 

[Nearly Sane]

Despite the fact that it appears that dear dead Stoney the Professor, first came up with his little fagpacketty calculation in 1944 at least, as Gordon has pointed out, the correlation calculation was known back then (note this is ignoring any questions about the clarity of the predictions or indeed their evidence of being true) so why would he and the darling American Science Affiliation (of Christians, but that bit is hidden) ignore a fairly basic bit of stats?

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Despite the fact that it appears that dear dead Stoney the Professor, first came up with his little fagpacketty calculation in 1944 at least, as Gordon has pointed out, the correlation calculation was known back then (note this is ignoring any questions about the clarity of the predictions or indeed their evidence of being true) so why would he and the darling American Science Affiliation (of Christians, but that bit is hidden) ignore a fairly basic bit of stats?

I can't imagine. It's almost as if they really wanted the story to be true so - um - well, maybe were a tad less rigorous than we might have hoped for?

It's a crock from start to finish (sorry DaveM) but it's not the first daft religious anecdote masquerading as logic, and doubtless it won't be the last either.     

[Spud]

Spud

I'll predict that someone well-known as an entertainer will die within the next calendar year: I could even specify that it will be a musician. I stand a fair chance of my prophecy coming true. You'll note that the terms 'well-known', 'entertainer' and 'musician' are handily imprecise.

So, when you say 'fit fairly well with Antiochus IV' this still seems to include the risk of imprecision.

Going with the "Daniel 11:36-12:13 refers to Antiochus IV" hypothesis for now, interesting how 12:11 gives three years as the time during which the daily sacrifice is abolished. This fits what we know about Antiochus' actions between 168-165 BC (see the link I gave earlier). That seems quite precise, especially if, as the book of Daniel claims, the vision occurred during the third year of Cyrus.

[Spud]

Incidentally, I have not dismissed the possibility of the last chapter and-a -bit of Daniel as being about a later king, ie Herod.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Just looked up this Stoner chap. Turns out he was a co-founder of the American Scientific Affiliation.

So we have an article praising a book of dodgy statistics that was endorsed by an organisation co-founded by the book's author.

[Gordon]

It is also quite dangerous to peddle this type of simplistic twaddle as serious science since it not only appeals to the already credulous but may also influence those who in all innocence aren't familiar with how numeric data should be presented or that how these data are collected is important (especially so if the method used isn't specified).

The daftness of dear old Stoney's approach is even more obvious if we change the characteristics just for illustration:

Suppose one man in every ten is taller than 6 feet and four inches, and one man in 100 has a fondness for wearing neckties, then one man in every 1,000 ( the product of 10 and 100) is both taller than six feet and four inches and likes neckties.

There are any number of questions about these statistics (in addition to whether or not they are true, which I'm not suggesting they are) - but, for example, what was the age range of the sample was used to assess fondness for neckties? This would be important to know if it was the case that some aspects of dress preference varied across the age spectrum - stuff like that.

That Stoney's stuff is still be referenced by Christian websites reeks of desperation.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

Going with the "Daniel 11:36-12:13 refers to Antiochus IV" hypothesis for now, interesting how 12:11 gives three years as the time during which the daily sacrifice is abolished. This fits what we know about Antiochus' actions between 168-165 BC (see the link I gave earlier). That seems quite precise, especially if, as the book of Daniel claims, the vision occurred during the third year of Cyrus.

Gordon's prediction will seem quite precise too when we get around to retro-fitting whichever entertainer happens to die in an event span even narrower than the one Daniel allows for. Because I'm even better than Gordon at this prediction malarkey though, I'll make it even more precise for you: I hereby predict that this entertainer will known for his TV and for his theatre work, that he will have had many admirers but will also have divided opinion and drawn some criticism over his long career, and that he could occasionally perform more risqué work in private performances.

You'll forgive me I hope if I can't quite get his precise name just now - the mists are closing in a little - but as Daniel didn't bother with names either it seems that shouldn't be a problem I'd have thought.

Watch this space!     

[Spud]

blueside, everybody agrees [Edit: Daniel 11:21-35] is talking about Antiochus. It's the claim that it was written hundreds of years earlier that makes it significant.

[Gordon]

Going with the "Daniel 11:36-12:13 refers to Antiochus IV" hypothesis for now, interesting how 12:11 gives three years as the time during which the daily sacrifice is abolished. This fits what we know about Antiochus' actions between 168-165 BC (see the link I gave earlier). That seems quite precise, especially if, as the book of Daniel claims, the vision occurred during the third year of Cyrus.

You are stiil floundering about in imprecision Spud, along with the use of terms like 'interesting how', 'if'. All you seem to be doing here is post-hoc rationalisation so as create a narrative to force these bits of the story together in order to suit what you personally want to be true.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

blueside, everybody agrees Daniel is talking about Antiochus. It's the claim that it was written hundreds of years earlier that makes it significant.

No "everybody" does not and, even if lots of people at least did think that, they'd still have all the logical and evidential problems associated with that belief to address.

[Nearly Sane]

blueside, everybody agrees Daniel is talking about Antiochus. It's the claim that it was written hundreds of years earlier that makes it significant.

I don't ergo your statement is wrong

[Spud]

Spud,

blueside, everybody agrees Daniel is talking about Antiochus. It's the claim that it was written hundreds of years earlier that makes it significant.

No "everybody" does not and, even if lots of people at least did think that, they'd still have all the logical and evidential problems associated with that belief to address.

In Daniel 11:21-35, I think you'll find most people agree that Antiochus IV fulfills it. They do not think so about verses 36 onwards.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

In Daniel 11:21-35, I think you'll find most people agree that Antiochus IV fulfills it. They do not think so about verses 36 onwards.

How did you get from "most people in Daniel 11:21-35" to "everybody" exactly?

(Most people in the Harry Potter books think Harry can fly a broomstick by the way.)

[Nearly Sane]

Spud,

blueside, everybody agrees Daniel is talking about Antiochus. It's the claim that it was written hundreds of years earlier that makes it significant.

No "everybody" does not and, even if lots of people at least did think that, they'd still have all the logical and evidential problems associated with that belief to address.

In Daniel 11:21-35, I think you'll find most people agree that Antiochus IV fulfills it. They do not think so about verses 36 onwards.

Given your original claim above that everybody  agrees is wrong, please evidence that circa 3. 7 bn people agree with you now?

[Nearly Sane]

And just to note that it's an assertion and an argumentum ad populum  and in the case of the everybody,now proven wrong

[~TW~]

Spud,

blueside, everybody agrees Daniel is talking about Antiochus. It's the claim that it was written hundreds of years earlier that makes it significant.

No "everybody" does not and, even if lots of people at least did think that, they'd still have all the logical and evidential problems associated with that belief to address.

In Daniel 11:21-35, I think you'll find most people agree that Antiochus IV fulfills it. They do not think so about verses 36 onwards.

Given your original claim above that everybody  agrees is wrong, please evidence that circa 3. 7 bn people agree with you now?

 Yes I will back that put me down as a everybody.

  ~TW~

[Nearly Sane]

Spud,

blueside, everybody agrees Daniel is talking about Antiochus. It's the claim that it was written hundreds of years earlier that makes it significant.

No "everybody" does not and, even if lots of people at least did think that, they'd still have all the logical and evidential problems associated with that belief to address.

In Daniel 11:21-35, I think you'll find most people agree that Antiochus IV fulfills it. They do not think so about verses 36 onwards.

Given your original claim above that everybody  agrees is wrong, please evidence that circa 3. 7 bn people agree with you now?

 Yes I will back that put me down as a everybody.

  ~TW~

Mmm, claiming to be legion, tw?