Battle Royale VII Specific discussion thread

[ZroKewl]

Bob talks a lot... without saying much. It's amazing. What are the odds of that?

What are the odds that something will happen? Anything at all? Just about 100% I'd say. What are the odds that something a bit more specific happens? Like, for instance, something happening within the Milky Way galaxy? Again, probably 100%. But, the more specific you get, the less likely *that particular event* is likely to happen. Every thing that happens is *a specific event that can be given enough criteria to differentiate it from every other specific event that has every happened, and probably ever will* (ie: we could always add the time that it happened, and that limits it significantly). Now, before every event happens, the odds that that specific event will happen is very slim. Probably just about 0%, actually.

You may be saying (not you, the other guy) that this is stupid. If I'm about to flip a quarter, then the odds that it comes up heads is NOT almost 0%. But that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying the *precise event*. Not just "getting a head on a flip of a quarter" -- but having the quarter take the exact path through space *and time* hitting the exact molecules in the exact same way take the exact amount of time in its travel to hit your hand in the exact same spot on your hand while the universe is in the exact same configuration as it was. That's exact. Now, the odds of that happening exactly like that is about... 0%. But, it happened. And it happens all the time. Why? Because the odds that something will occur does not affect whether or not that thing will occur (yikes, QM hurts my head). It just affects our prediction of that thing. So, to say that something COULDN'T HAVE HAPPENED because it is ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE THAT IT WOULD HAPPEN is ignorant. Everything that happens is almost impossible. But things happen all the time.

Another thing to keep in mind is the anthropic principle. This basically says that if something didn't happen, we wouldn't be asking what the odds were that it happened. More specifically, if we weren't here, we wouldn't be asking what the odds of us being here was.

So, Bob doesn't get science, and he doesn't get probability. I think talking about the Bible was a good profession for him. :chuckle:

--ZK

Follow Up:

Bob noted that it's practically impossible for the letters "abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz" to show up in his random character generator program (evolve). I agree. But, that order has EXACTLY the same probability of showing up as does "aeatwmgccakbgpgpqbsbuxawiq" -- BUT, that's exactly what I got after running the program for less than 1 second. Wow. Cool, huh? Something practically impossible just happened.

 

[Freak]

Bob--will you retract your statement based on the truths that have been revealed?

From a earlier post:

Bob stated, incorrectly I might add, in his last post: So tribesmen can adopt minimalist clothing and condition their women to go topless, but missionaries find that women in such cultures readily reassert their modesty.

I have traveled & have lived in the third world (nearly 30 different nations) and have seen that many of these women are not so willing to "reassert their modesty" as you have proposed. I have preached the gospel in many remote areas of Asia, Africa and the Carribean where women run around topless with no concern for modesty.

 

[jeremiah]

ZroKewl:
I think you miss the point that the sequencing in genes and or proteins has to be just right in order for there to be LIFE. We are not just picking any sequence and saying that every permutation is just as unlikely as any other. We are saying that only one of the quadrillions randomnly chosen will work. It is believable that you only tried it once and got aeatw.................. but that has no meaning. Would you believe me if I said that I only tried it once and got thequickbrownfoxjumpedoverlazydogs?

 

[Vitamin J]

Zakath said regarding the Holocaust

It was wrong. Period.

I then asked Zakath.... So is that a "yes, the Holocaust was absolutely wrong?"

And Zakath responded

No, that is an incorrect reading of my post. I did not use the word absolute.

So then it wasn't wrong PERIOD?

Help us understand what your statement meant when you said...

It was wrong. Period.

What does the "PERIOD" mean in your above statement?


Zakath asks

Then on what basis do you believe that the NAZI attempt at genocide was absolutely wrong? Or do you?

The Holocaust was absolutely wrong because it was murder, it was the unjust killing of the innocent.

Yet...

Killing the NAZI's was not wrong because it was the justified killing of the guilty.

I am curious as to how you would disagree with the above analysis.

Regarding genocide Zakath wrote

If there are instances of it being correct as well as it being wrong, then it is not absolute

I agree! I already stated genocide is NOT absolutely wrong! Genocide is like killing, its morally neutral.

The real question is if the genocide involves MURDER - as in the Holocaust, THEN is it absolutely wrong?

Thats why my original question was regarding the Holocaust and NOT genocide in general. And thats also why Bob's example of the Holocaust was good a one because it was specific and limited to a example that we can determine is absolutely wrong. Sadly, you cannot utter these words even though you have no ability to justify the actions of the Holocaust. In essence you have lost the debate but wont admit it like a small child that refuses to make the final move in a game of checkers because he knows it will produce his loss.

And finally you ask

How about killing the unborn?

Again (as has been stated COUNTLESS times) KILLING is not absolutely wrong.

When US bombs killed countless people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki thousands on unborn children were killed. It was tragic indeed but NOT absolutely wrong.

Yet when an innocent child is MURDERED through abortion or through malice of another kind then I defy you to justify it.

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by jeremiah
ZroKewl:
I think you miss the point that the sequencing in genes and or proteins has to be just right in order for there to be LIFE. We are not just picking any sequence and saying that every permutation is just as unlikely as any other. We are saying that only one of the quadrillions randomnly chosen will work. It is believable that you only tried it once and got aeatw.................. but that has no meaning. Would you believe me if I said that I only tried it once and got thequickbrownfoxjumpedoverthelazydogs?

If you'd read the link I provided, one of the things that it mentions is that for any given protein, there are significant lengths of the peptide strand that are both inactive and unecessary to the functionality of the protein. There has been research done in which they've substituted random blocks of peptides for the inactive sections without appearing to affect the protein's function. So long as the tertiary structure is not significantly impacted, the substitution seems to be harmless.

The idea that all N peptides (pick whatever number fits the protein you're looking at) must be identical does not appear to be a necessity in the real world.

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Vitamin J
Zakath said regarding the HolocaustI then asked Zakath.... So is that a "yes, the Holocaust was absolutely wrong?"

And Zakath respondedSo then it wasn't wrong PERIOD?

Help us understand what your statement meant when you said...What does the "PERIOD" mean in your above statement?

"Period" marks the end of my statement. I omitted the word absolute.

Zakath asksThe Holocaust was absolutely wrong because it was murder, it was the unjust killing of the innocent.

Yet...

Killing the NAZI's was not wrong because it was the justified killing of the guilty.

I am curious as to how you would disagree with the above analysis.

Don't the Christians teach that no humans are innocent and that all are worthy of death? Hitler claimed to be doing the work of God by driving out and destroying Jews.

Regarding genocide...I agree! I already stated genocide is NOT absolutely wrong! Genocide is like killing, its morally neutral.

I would disagree and say that genocide - the wholesale slaughter of a group, is wrong.

The real question is if the genocide involves MURDER - as in the Holocaust, THEN is it absolutely wrong?

For killing to be murder there must be forethought and malice. Interestingly enough, both those elements are present in many military operations, as well. The Holocaust was, essentially, a military operation. The camps were run by the military. Is the military wrong to engage in genocide?

Thats why my original question was regarding the Holocaust and NOT genocide in general. And thats also why Bob's example of the Holocaust was good a one because it was specific and limited to a example that we can determine is absolutely wrong.

A single incident cannot be absolute since it is bounded by circumstance. Absolute applies to classes of behaviors or actions, e.g. "aminal testing is absolutely wrong" or "blasphemy is absolutely wrong".

Sadly, you cannot utter these words even though you have no ability to justify the actions of the Holocaust. In essence you have lost the debate but wont admit it like a small child that refuses to make the final move in a game of checkers because he knows it will produce his loss.

I merely do not believe that there is an absolute moral standard based on some deity somewhere. So for me to claim an action is "absolutely wrong" or "absolutely right" based upon some deity's nature would be hypocritical and inconsistent.

And finally you askAgain (as has been stated COUNTLESS times) KILLING is not absolutely wrong. Yet when an innocent child is MURDERED through abortion or through malice of another kind then I defy you to justify it.

Was the slaughter of the unborn ordered in city after city by YHWH and described in the book of Joshua absolutely wrong? Was it not done from malice?

 

[jeremiah]

To Zakath:
....but the active and necessary lengths of the peptide strain would still have to be in the proper sequence in order for the protein to be viable and functional? In other words somewhere in the long sequence there would have to be the abc's {in order} no matter how many random and "Unnecessary" sequences of jumbled abc's preceded or followed it. This would still require quadrillions of sequences according to random selection as proposed by Bob. Wouldn't it? Or Have I misunderstood the concept?

 

[Flipper]

VitaminJ:

Same here.

Merriam-Webster

Whoops, my bad. I was reading the source for the previous definition as the title.

The definition I fished off dictionary.com was actually from Princeton's WordNet -- I find it a more compelling definition. How genocide should be defined is hotly debated. I favor a narrower definition. I find myself more in agreement with the Institute for the Study of Genocide than I do with Merriams, I guess.

http://www.isg-iags.org/definitions/def_genocide.html

 

[Flipper]

Freak:

Bob--will you retract your statement based on the truths that have been revealed?

I doubt it. Bob seems to prefer ignoring posts and points that refute his foundationless assertions.

 

[Flipper]

Vitamin J:

I don't suppose your going to address any of my questions are you?

I might. What were they?

 

[Bob Enyart]

Modesty

Modesty

Freak, I really enjoy learning from people who have widely traveled. I've gone through much of North America including Alaska and Hawaii, Canada and just into Mexico, Italy, Israel, and New Zealand. That's it.

Thanks for responding to my question which was: Can you give me a list of a few countries and locales that you are thinking of (which disprove the point I made about naitive women reasserting their modesty).

You listed these four countries: Nigeria, Togo, Ghana, and Benin

Can you now give me a bit more info, and tell me some locales or cities in some of these countries. Of course I'd like to look into this further and correct an error if I made one. So please, if you can give me a bit more direction. The names of a city or two in each country, or a region if that's more applicable. Thanks, -Bob

 

[Flipper]

Bob Enyart wrote:

Of course I'd like to look into this further and correct an error if I made one.

Wowie, look at that. Perhaps I stand corrected. Good news for everyone.

While you're hitting the books, Enyart, you might look up some references regarding the atheists you mentioned who were confounded by the controversy over spontaneous generation. I couldn't find anything, but I'm assuming you have something specific in mind, or I'm sure you wouldn't have said that.

Not to mention elucidating a bit on your NASA prediction - you didn't mention what you thought NASA were expecting to find. I did a bit of digging around but couldn't find anything implying confusion or puzzlement in the astronomical community regarding the HST deep field imagery in 1995. I'm sure you already knew that evidence for a non-uniform universe was already knocking about in 1965.

And what of your prediction in the light of deeper field photography that does seem to show a distinct difference the further back we go?

Your prediction, it seems to me, was utterly wrong going by the spirit of what you were implying. If I read you right, you made this prediction to show that God created a uniform construct, and to refute the idea of a primordial universe.

Of course I'd like to look into this further and correct an error if I made one.

Well then, off you go fearless truth seeker!

In return, now you've actually posted your references, I'll look them over and see what I can learn.

 

[Aussie Thinker]

Bobs latest post had some terribly bad “proofs”

Lets look at a few.

Proof for god through humour. Humans are the only creatures are embarrassed by waste and reproduction….

LOL.. what an idiot Bob is. Have you ever seen a dog or a cat defecating.. they hide away mostly and look horribly embarrassed if you see them do it. Plus defecation etc is smelly and that is why it is embarrassing. Our early history would have also included a fear while defecating and having sex.. we were much more vulnerable in these states therefore fearful.

Human fear of death and darkness.

Humans are naturally afraid of the dark due to ancient fear of predation. We are diurnal creatures therefore we sleep and hide during the night. Even 1,000 ‘s of years of civilisation has failed to completely remove this. Death is an obvious one.. we are smart enough to know that this fellow human is no more.. the ultimate loss.. we naturally don’t want to associate with that as it shows us our ultimate fate. Animals have also showed strange reverence, awe and fear of death too.

Beauty

I love this one.. Bob even contradicts himself in his own piece.. we see beauty in a sunset but not in a rotting corpse. So God put both of them there does he love Ugly too ? Or is it just that beauty and ugly appear to us in .. shock horror… random and fairly equal amounts.. could this be our own human preferences… NOOO !

Probability (alphabet test)

Bob clearly doesn’t understand what Zakath has tried to tell him. I laugh at him wasting his time with his stupid little program.

Try this Bob.. try reprogramming your random generator to work like evolution really works..

Set it so it has environmental selection events and sexual attraction working for it too.

Here is a simple fix. Set it so that every time a “beneficial mutation” happens.. in other word if a letter falls in the correct place, LOCK IT IN. Like evolution does !

Then keep running for the other letters. In a mere 26 factorial you would have your alphabet… btw that is (26 x 25 x 24…x 2 x 1)/26 to the 26th power = about 1in 12 billion iterations.

That means to get a full sequence of 26 numbers using an evolutionary style program it would take approximately from 1 to 12 billion times. In fact by the time you had your 3 trillion goes you would have achieved it 250 times.

Now even given that not all beneficial changes get “locked in” the numbers are WAY smaller than Bobs stupid way of doing it and as we all know nature has trillions of goes at things so probability becomes more and more possibility and then likelihood !

Now for his most idiotic piece posted to date. Not only has he posted this before but he complains that Zakath has refused to properly address it.

If no natural means can be found for a phenomenon, then that becomes evidence for the supernatural; if no natural cause exists, then that becomes proof for the supernatural

No natural means could be found for lightning.. so it was supernatural.. no natural means was found for Day and Night so it was supernatural.. hang on now we have natural explanations so they don;t require a supernatural one any more…

BUT FOR BOB..

Unexplained things still MEAN a GOD..

why do a I get an image of a caveman cowering in an electrical storm praying for deliverance ?

No natural cause only means we haven’t found one yet.. not that it doesn’t exist !

 

[August]

RogerB wrote:
<Knowledge? More like pie-in-the-sky, got a hole - make up a new theory, we'll make this work>

You're right, of course. Even Velikovsky could have come up with something better. But, IMO, you're wasting your time. Heusdens keeps trying to bait me, but I won't respond until he:
1) stops pretending that he understands physics. He thinks that matter is eternal and cannot be destroyed (destructed!?!), when the rest of us know that the sun wouldn't be shining if matter weren't being destroyed all the time.
2) Makes an effort to learn to express clear thoughts in the English language.
3)Drops the attitude: "Why say it in 100 words when you can confuse the issue with 1000?"
4)Stops trying to use this forum as a propaganda medium for some kind of dialectical materialism agenda. Perhaps he should log on to a philosophy forum.

 

[Flake]

Re: Modesty

Re: Modesty

Originally posted by Bob Enyart
Freak, I really enjoy learning from people who have widely traveled. I've gone through much of North America including Alaska and Hawaii, Canada and just into Mexico, Italy, Israel, and New Zealand. That's it.

Thanks for responding to my question which was: Can you give me a list of a few countries and locales that you are thinking of (which disprove the point I made about naitive women reasserting their modesty).

You listed these four countries: Nigeria, Togo, Ghana, and Benin

Can you now give me a bit more info, and tell me some locales or cities in some of these countries. Of course I'd like to look into this further and correct an error if I made one. So please, if you can give me a bit more direction. The names of a city or two in each country, or a region if that's more applicable. Thanks, -Bob

Bob seems to be forgetting that he is responsible for his own posts and the content therein, and any errors are for him to take the time to research, study and rectify.

This public request for affirmation of Freaks statement can only be leading to either a refutation, publicly, of Freaks comment, thereby gaining kudos or "points" in this peanut brained gallery, or, being so subtly veiled as to also allow Bob to gracefully retract his assertion with a public display of integrity. Nice try Bob.

 

[RogerB]

Oh look, it's Flake being flakey again.

 

[RogerB]

I feel kinda sorry for Zakath and I have new found respect for Bob.

Zakath, regardless of this alleged "secret agenda" you should still provide direct responses to Bob's questions.

TKO in the 8th round! Bob wins!!

 

[Freak]

Re: Modesty

Re: Modesty

Originally posted by Bob Enyart
Freak, I really enjoy learning from people who have widely traveled.

Traveling opens ones eyes.

I've gone through much of North America including Alaska and Hawaii, Canada and just into Mexico, Italy, Israel, and New Zealand. That's it.

That's probably more then most Americans.

Thanks for responding to my question which was: Can you give me a list of a few countries and locales that you are thinking of (which disprove the point I made about naitive women reasserting their modesty).

No problem.

You listed these four countries: Nigeria, Togo, Ghana, and Benin.

You asked me to give you a "list of a few countries" so I did.

Can you now give me a bit more info.

Sure.

... and tell me some locales or cities in some of these countries.

Since I lived in the Republic of Benin I spent many months in Cotonou. Even in Cotonou (which is the captial) you'll see many of the women topless (like in the marketplace). Bob, whenever I traveled through the marketplace the women who were topless did not reassert their modesty.

I have witnessed this in scores of cities throughout Western Africa. Remember I traveled as an evangelist. In Benin, I have spoken in numerous remote villages outside of Parakou, Abomey, Ouidah, Natitingou.

In Nigeria, I have an adopted brother, Francis Ebo (who is a Nigerian), who lives in a remote village Nkpour that I spent some time in (and where you can witness this nakedness and the reality that the topless woman did not "reassert their modesty.") I have traveled from Lagos to Benin City to Kano (visiting dozens of smalll villages).

In Ghana, I have traveled from Accra to Kumasi (held a large public crusade there in 1999). In Togo, I have traveled from my end to another--border to border--

Hope this helps.

Of course I'd like to look into this further and correct an error if I made one.

Huh? Look into it? I have already pointed out your error. Will you admit your error?

 

[Mr Jack]

Er, Freak, do you mean 'reassert their modesty'? Because 'reassert their nakedness' doesn't make a whole load of sense?

 

[Freak]

Re: Re: Modesty

Re: Re: Modesty

Originally posted by Flake
Bob seems to be forgetting that he is responsible for his own posts and the content therein.

That is correct. I am informing Bob that his claim, that woman who are naked reassert their modesty when confronted, is simply untrue and is an outright lie. I'm a follower of the Lord Jesus Christ and this lie must be exposed.