Dembski and the Bible Code

| 86 Comments | 1 TrackBack

Pat Hayes at Red State Rabble (which ought to be on everyone’s daily reading list) calls attention to something I didn’t know: Bill Dembski endorsed the Bible Code nonsense (also reproduced here), identifying it with his intelligent design detection methodology:

At the same time that research in the Bible Code has taken off, research in a seemingly unrelated field has taken off as well, namely, biological design. These two fields are in fact closely related. Indeed, the same highly improbable, independently given patterns that appear as the equidistant letter sequences in the Bible Code appear in biology as functionally integrated (“irreducibly complex”) biological systems, of the sort Michael Behe discussed in Darwin’s Black Box.

The relevant statistical methodology is identical for both fields. As a result, the two fields stand to profit from each other. For instance, my forthcoming book, The Design Inference, gives a thorough account of universal probability bounds, i.e., how small a p-value one needs to eliminate chance decisively. (Although the literature on universal probability bounds dates back to the French probabilist Emile Borel, it seems not to have been engaged by the Bible Code researchers.)

This convergence of the Bible Code and biological design should not seem surprising. There is a tradition within both Judaism and Christianity of speaking of two “books” where God reveals himself—the Book of Scripture, which is the Bible, and the Book of Nature, which is the world. I commend Jeffrey Satinover for his efforts to read both books.

The Bible Code nonsense has been thoroughly debunked: See here for a compendium of dissections, and see also Chaper 14 in Mark Perakh’s Unintelligent Design. Does Dembski still assert the identity, and has he profited from the lesson of the Bible Code? Not visibly. His design detection methodology has been debunked as thoroughly as the Bible Codes, yet IDists still claim that they have a methodology for detecting design. They are in the same boat: a convergence of cranks.

RBH

1 TrackBack

Pat Hayes at Red State Rabble tries to present the face on Mars as an example in false positives equivalent to the appearance of design in cellular machinery. When will morons like Pat Hayes cop to the fact that seeing the Virgin Mary’s face in ... Read More

86 Comments

Oh, that’s terrific to know. Because one course in combinatorics and some c coding was all it took me to see through the skip code stuff. In Dembski was wowed by it, all I can say is that he’d better get a refund on that PhD of his, in an undergrad math minor trumps it.

Actually, I first got exposed to the skip code stuff back in the mid 1980s, wrote a quick program that “proved” through skip codes that my friend Rose wrote the lyrics to The Wall (Sorry, Roger W, your fraud’s been exposed), and that was that.

He’s also IIRC had flirtations with Lomborg and various anti-environmental crankery. So let’s see, that gives us associations with

– The Bible Code – evolution denial – global warming denial – HIV/AIDS denial

If he could just fit in some innuendos about 9/11 denial, holocaust denial, and flouridated water we’d have a grand slam.

I think we should definitely take him at his word on this one. Bible Code and ID are definitively of the same rank. I was surprised myslef, but I think Billie’s taken his first steps on the path of truth-telling.

Way to go, Bill!!!

a convergence of cranks

Is this the collective noun for cranks? It’s right in line with “an exaltation of larks” and “a conspiracy of ravens”.

Patterns must be given independently of the search, and only then can small p-values indicate the finger of God.

HA HA HA HA ! or just LMAO!

The finger of God. God, YHWH, it most definitley the non-human intelligence behind the Bible Code and it is most certainly not Satan, Allah, Vishnu, or Ahura Mazda. Oh, and small p-values are definitely indicators of the Finger of YHWH.

Yes!

An internet of cranks.

btw, I love Pat’s line:

“Our Isaac Newton of information theory says the relevant statistical methodology is identical. We couldn’t have said it better ourselves.”

I’ve written my own C++ code, and found amazing Equidistant Letter Sequences (ELS) in lots of books besides the Bible. For example, in Drosnin’s sequel book, Bible Code II, this message is hidden in code in the first chapter:

THE BIBLE CODE IS A SILLY, DUMB, FAKE, FALSE, EVIL, NASTY, DISMAL FRAUD AND SNAKE-OIL HOAX.

I’ve several articles on the Bible Code at NMSR, here and here for starters.

Cheers, Dave

P.S. If any of you have ever written down or typed the word “generalization,” you have unintentionally coded the word NAZI, at a skip of 3: GENERALIZATION

A. L. R. Wrote:

If he could just fit in some innuendos about 9/11 denial, holocaust denial, and flouridated water we’d have a grand slam.

We already have more than a grand slam with what I call the “pseudoscience code of silence.” Dembski does not criticize YEC, even though he seems to know that it’s nonsense. But neither does he criticize Roswell, spoon bending, therapeutic touch, etc. etc. etc.

The most consistent - and self-incriminating - feature of any pseudoscience is that it’s criticisms (including an almost universal pretense of a “conspiracy”) are always directed toward mainstream science, and never to any other pseudoscience. Sure, there is the occasional “distancing from” or “quick dismissals”, but they are just a tactic that is always followed by moving on to safer turf. No “equal time” for those scammers.

LMAO!!!!! when DaveScot sees that Dembski linked ID with the Bible Code he’s going to cry. Maybe he’ll quit the site. Which is fine with me, I’m tired of having to kiss his but just to comment there.

Bah, who cares what Dembski says about the Bible Code. Let’s ask a real expert on the Bible what she thinks about the Bible Code - Carol Landa.

yeah, that’s just what this thread needs. More Carol Clouser. You should change your name to W. Kevin Bad Idea

Forget the religious aspects of the Bible Codes. If Dembski continues to assert that his “research” into ID can be applied in *any* way to the positive validation of the Bible Codes then he is driving the final nail into ID’s coffin.

His support of the Bible Codes may (sadly) play well with the uninformed public, but he will be evicerated if this ever comes up in court.

Nice find.

I can’t decide which is more pitiable: That Dembski might endorse the Bible Code, knowing it’s a load of crap, just to ingratiate himself with the believers, or that he might actually believe it himself.

I almost feel sorry for him, in an abstract way. Almost.

Why read books about Bible codes when you can get the software and do it yourself! Yes that’s right, followers of William the Theologian, your computer can decode the bible for you. Here is just one offering:

http://www.biblecodesplus.com/

You guys are missing the best quote so be sure and read Dembski’s entire review. Here is a tidbit of the Grand Pubah of Intelligent Design:

The Bible Code is controversial because some have presented it as a preprogrammed time capsule set to go off once humans invent computers. The human authors of the Bible, writing well before the advent of computers, would have been incapable of consciously introducing into the Bible the patterns that Bible Code researchers are finding by means of computers. Hence these patterns, if not attributable to chance, must stem from a non-human intelligence. Moreover, if the patterns contain information about subsequent events in world history, this nonhuman intelligence would also have to possess preternatural foreknowledge. And since the Bible claims to be inspired by precisely such a being, the most obvious solution to the identity of this nonhuman intelligence is the God of the Hebrew Scriptures, to wit, YHWH. Here, in broad strokes, is the logic underlying the Bible Code.

So God put the code in the bible…What a loon.

Seems that Dembski’s belief in front loading is expressing itself in more than one way. In both cases however it seems that he is painting the target around the arrows.

The Bible Code? Oy…

I do hope there’s another court case, but one where Dembski feels able to appear as a witness for ID. If Behe had to admit under oath in Kitzmiller that ID has the same intellectual rigour as astrology, what could a competent lawyer make of all this?

Could Dembski ever dare to expose himself to the rigour of a courtroom - or anywhere where he has to actually engage with those who haven’t drunk his particular Kool-Aid?

R

You know, this may be an important example of why it is so difficult to reach Biblical literalists. Some part of their minds suspect that the scientists are wrong and that the clues are all around them. On judgment day they think they will all be saying “I am SO glad I stuck with my brethren on this one”. I can see it happening; my family is from Norway. On those long winter nights, when the sun shines for just three or four hours, even if I KNEW that the days would reach a minimun length on Dec 21 or 22 and then begin lengthening, even if I KNEW that it was due to the tilting of the earth and the angle that the sun’s rays hit the earth, I would probably go ahead and perform those pagan midwinter rituals, JUST IN CASE logic doesn’t rule in the end, and that appeasing the “sun god” to bring back the sun IS necessary after all. We as a species are so superstitious!

Mr. Dembski is absolutely correct in his claim that the Bible codes and intelligent-design creationism have much in common.

I have written a bit about the Bible codes here:

www.mines.edu/~mmyoung/BkRevs.htm

I give you fair warning, though; you’ll have to scroll thru Hugh Ross and Gerald Schroeder before you get there.

Please excuse me - that URL is correct but lacked “http://”. It should be

http://www.mines.edu/~mmyoung/BkRevs.htm

Bloody computers - they do what you tell them to do, not what you think you’ve told them.

I’m waiting to see how WD’s incipient conversion to Orthodox Judiasm goes over with his bosses at his seminary.

I gotta say that if there was a free Bible Code de-encoder I might have some fun with it. But they’re all payware, booooo.

There are some at Download.com with free trials. That should let you find a few things like “Dave Scot Sucks” and “Dembski is a Fraud”.

Heh. Maybe even “Dover will be the Waterloo”

Is this the collective noun for cranks? It’s right in line with “an exaltation of larks” and “a conspiracy of ravens”.

More like a confederacy of dunces.

I gotta say that if there was a free Bible Code de-encoder I might have some fun with it.

What we really need is to do these analyses with the text of No Free Lunch.

Both of these Skeptical Inquirer articles are well worth the read. They were published near the time of Demsbki’s review

Hidden Messages and The Bible Code David E Thomas, Skeptical Inquirer November/December 1997

Follow Up: Bible-Code Developments David E Thomas, Skeptical Inquirer March/April 1998

Enjoy!

.

If ID is equivalent to BC and BC has been debunked, ID has been debunked.

Syntax Error: mismatched tag at line 3, column 270, byte 382 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.16/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187.

This is amazing: convergent pseudosciences. That’s quite rare.

I do remember actually bothering to watch The Oprah Winfrey Show when Drosnin was first doing his thing. I couldn’t tell what sort of dumbfoundedness in the audience was at work after he announced the thesis. I was, however appalled to see no critic on the show.

It is not surprising that Dembski is sympathetic to this nonsense, because it ultimately derives from the same sort of statistical error that is central to Demski’s work–attempting to calculate a “probability” for something that has already happened. This has been controversial since the early days of statistics. I think that most statisticians today would agree such computations can have value–they are at the heart of significance testing–but they are fraught with opportunities for error.

The fundamental problem is that it is necessary to correct for all possible sources of bias, and outside of extremely formalized and well-defined situations, this is typically impossible. The major source of bias is known as “data snooping,” and arises from the that one is unlikely to attempt to calculate the probability of an event unless it is perceived as somehow remarkable, but any one of a number of apparently remarkable events could motivate such an effort. So the relevant question is not “What is the likelihood of this particular observation?”, but rather, “What is the likelihood of some observation that would look sufficiently remarkable so as to motivate me to try to calculate its probability?” It turns out that human intuition is remarkable poor at answering this question, and almost always greatly underestimates this likelihood.

In scientific significance testing, this is dealt with by demanding that the “null” and “test” hypotheses be defined in advance before collecting the data, so that knowledge of the results cannot bias the statistical question being asked. But most of the time, you are in the position of basically accepting somebody’s word that they have actually done this.

The Biblical Code issue is right at the edge of what can be approached statistically, and its history reveals how easy it is to introduce subtle biases that yield falsely low probabilities, but at least it is possible in principle to do appropriate control studies to answer the question of how likely such patterns are to occur by chance in a particular piece of text–which turns out to be, as is so often the case, “surprisingly likely.”

Of course, Dembski is in a far worse situation, because to actually do what he is trying to do, he most calculate, not the likelihood of evolution of a particular form of life, but rather the likelihood of evolution of a species that would motivate somebody to try to calculate its probability. To do this, he has to correct for the anthropocentric bias–i.e. no matter how rare life is in the universe, if it exists at all, then every observer will necessarily find himself on a planet where life has evolved. Making this correction requires, among many other things, knowledge of how many planets there are in the universe–if the universe is big enough, life will evolve, no matter how improbable that might be in the particular case. Dembski usually tries to dodge this by talking about the size of the “observable” universe. This is a bait and switch, because what we can see is not necessarily all exists.

This is also why ID people are so hostile to String Theory. It is bad enough that we live in a universe whose size (and indeed, its finiteness) is unknown, but the problem becomes far worse if this is only one of a large number of universes, because then the relevant correction becomes, “What is the likelihood that life would have formed in *some* universe?” If taken seriously, this utterly demolishes Dembski’s argument.

I understand your point about it being in short supply but Im not going to give it back until you can learn to play nice with it.

I applaud Carol for making our point for us: a document such as the Bible (that would ‘tanakh’, Carol, not ‘torah’) is capable of multiple interpretations. Anything can be gleaned from it - even an attempted correspondence with modern science. Of course, doing so commits violent damage to the text and what understanding we have of the various valid interpretations.

We cannot know what the authors’ original intentions were - they’re dead. All we have are various more or less valid reconstructions of that meaning.

This position of Carol’s - that one can derive pretty much any meaning from a text if one works hard enough - is in complete contrast to her original point concerning the hawking of Landa’s book, but it’s good to see that her time here at PT has been educational, if not congenial.

There certainly are many Biblical interpretations and translations out there in the marketplace that are totally divorced from the intentions of the author.

So Landa asked The Big Guy Himself, did he?

May I ask how the hell you, or anyone else, can possibly know anything more about “the intentions of the author” than anyone else alive does?

Lenny wrote:

“May I ask how the hell you, or anyone else, can possibly know anything more about “the intentions of the author” than anyone else alive does?”

By performing a rigorous and objective literary analysis. By studying linguistic trends. By combining these with historical and archeological considerations. And by using good common sense. These are valid and effective tools of the trade inthis area.

By performing a rigorous and objective literary analysis. By studying linguistic trends. By combining these with historical and archeological considerations. And by using good common sense. These are valid and effective tools of the trade inthis area.

Alas, though, lots of other Biblical scholars have also formed religious opinions by performing a rigorous and objective literary analysis. By studying linguistic trends. By combining these with historical and archeological considerations. And by using good common sense.

And they have concluded that your opinions are … well . . full of crap.

So how do we tell whether they are right, or you are?

Lenny wrote:

“…And they have concluded that your opinions are…well full of crap. So how do we tell whether they are right, or you are?”

Well, I am far from certain that your assertion is correct, but assuming it is, you would have to compare the quality of my analysis to their analysis, and decide for yourself.

I have confidence in your good judgement to the point that I am quite willing to submit to this mode of “peer review”. Are you willing to listen?

By performing a rigorous and objective literary analysis. By studying linguistic trends. By combining these with historical and archeological considerations. And by using good common sense. These are valid and effective tools of the trade inthis area.

How can someone who can so correctly state what is needed to form a coherent argument, fail so miserably in practice?

amazing.

You’re not much better than Larry at recognizing the flaws in your application of logic, remarkably enough.

”…And they have concluded that your opinions are…well full of crap. So how do we tell whether they are right, or you are?”

Well, I am far from certain that your assertion is correct

Um, Carol, do you mean to tell me that Biblical scholars all share exactly the same opinions and interpetations?

If so, then what’s the use of Landa’s book?

, but assuming it is, you would have to compare the quality of my analysis to their analysis, and decide for yourself.

Indeed.

So after all your arm-waving, it all boils down to “because I say so” after all, doesn’t it.

What a shocker.

I have confidence in your good judgement to the point that I am quite willing to submit to this mode of “peer review”. Are you willing to listen?

I’ve been listening to you ever since you arrived, Carol. And been quite unimpressed. In your parlance, I have decided for myself that you are full of it and that your, uh, “analysis” is no better than anyone else’s.

Now what?

Lenny is correct that Carol has not actually provided any “analysis” - merely unsupported opinions, hand-waving, and some selective cherry-picking of actual knowledgeable parties such as Rashi.

But the Coyne thread provides some indication of how her “analysis” works:

1. God tells Adam that if he eats the apple, he’ll die that day.

2. Adam eats the apple.

3. Adam doesn’t die for several hundred years.

4. Therefore, God changed Her mind.

The interesting thing about this analysis (fallacious as it is) is that it means that no statement attributed to God is worth considering. After all, when God says, “thou shalt not murder”, God may instantly forgive the murderer.

And we know (‘cause the tanakh (not the torah, Carol)) that God deceives. The Bible tells us that God lies.

So how can Carol possibly determine that God changed Her mind in Genesis, or just lied to Adam.

Answer: Carol can’t. Carol can have an opinion - but that’s all it is, an opinion.

Lenny wrote:

“Um, Carol, do you mean to tell me that Biblical scholars all share exactly the same opinions and interpretations?”

Not sharing exactly the same interpretations is NOT synonymous with showing that the other interpretation is, in YOUR parlance, full of .…

Lenny also wrote:

“So after all your arm-waving, it all boils down to “because I say so” after all, doesn’t it.”

I asked you to compare the quality of my analysis to that of their analysis, whoever your “their” is. Now, Lenny, that is NOT the same as “because I say so”, is it?

Lenny continues:

“I’ve been listening to you ever since you arrived, Carol.”

Why have I not noticed?

Then Lenny concludes:

“I have decided for myself that you are full of it”

That is fine with me. Contrary to your unsupported belief, I do not care one whit what you think about my analysis, the Bible, God, science and anything else. As I said many times, I am not here to preach. I belong to the family that does NOT, and never did, proselytize.

Carol (what does torah mean again?) Wrote:

Contrary to your unsupported belief, I do not care one whit what you think about my analysis, the Bible, God, science and anything else.

This is of course is why, only two posts above this one, you said:

I have confidence in your good judgement to the point that I am quite willing to submit to this mode of “peer review”. Are you willing to listen?

The continuing inconsistency of your posting is quite amusing.

As I said many times, I am not here to preach. I belong to the family that does NOT, and never did, proselytize.

And yet you’re willing to tell us - unasked - what the ‘correct’ interpretation of the Bible (that would be ‘tanakh’ Carol - not ‘torah’) is?

Utterly incoherent. Are you now going to threaten to leave again ‘cause we’re not taking your posts seriously?

Carol was all like…

Lenny wrote:

“May I ask how the hell you, or anyone else, can possibly know anything more about “the intentions of the author” than anyone else alive does?”

By performing a rigorous and objective literary analysis. By studying linguistic trends. By combining these with historical and archeological considerations. And by using good common sense. These are valid and effective tools of the trade inthis area.

Carol, I have no doubt that you do in fact examine the bible from a scholarly approach but check this out - if I say I prayed and God spoke to me and told me what the real meaning of the bible is and all these scholars are full of it and false prophets, how are you or anyone else going to dispute that?

Seriously.

This is yet another reason why the bible is useless and can be dangerous as a moral compass.

Mr C Carol’s compass is slightly …er unreliable. To her credit she broaches her reach every now and again but one truth she has NOT discovered is that, once in a while one must go over “the edge”. A perfect example is the current festival of the “Body” the winter Olympics. Carols I suspect has never been ‘extended” in the Field of play. That will be her loss and no one elses gain. My motto is die with no regrets. We get to hear her regrets on a daily basis. Unfortunately so do any children in her vicinity.

Mr. Christopher wrote:

“if I say I prayed and God spoke to me and told me what the real meaning of the bible is and all these scholars are full of it and false prophets, how are you or anyone else going to dispute that?”

I have actually spoken with people who ordained to make or imply such claims, sometimes about themselves, more often about others (among their contemporaries). My reaction is, as it should be in all such cases, “I don’t believe it until you prove it.”

Which is why the key revelations in the HB occured in front of the entire nation. ALL the Israelites SAW with THEIR OWN eyes the revelation at Sinai, the events at the sea of reeds, the exodus, and so on. No hearsay, rumors or taking and making claims based on faith. Then the entire people passed the information they themselves witnessed to their offspring, down the line in an unbroken chain to the present. At least this is the way the story is told by those who tell it at all. What great transparancy!

Do you see a key difference in this regard between Judaism and the other monotheistic religions. Who SAW the key revelatory events in those religions, even according to the claims made by the adherents of those religions?

Clouser the Threadkiller Wrote:

Which is why the key revelations in the HB occured in front of the entire nation. ALL the Israelites SAW with THEIR OWN eyes the revelation at Sinai, the events at the sea of reeds, the exodus, and so on.

The word “allegedly” is conspicuously missing, I think.

Carol Wrote:

Do you see a key difference in this regard between Judaism and the other monotheistic religions. Who SAW the key revelatory events in those religions, even according to the claims made by the adherents of those religions?

Judaism is identical to every other religion in this respect: most miracles occur off-camera, or are contained in books written by folks now comfortably dead.

500 people witnessed the resurrected Christ; why aren’t you impressed? The level of support for that claim is no better or worse than yours.

This is another characteristic of fundies: their peculiar belief that their religion is somehow different from all the others; a belief not founded in fact.

Besides, Carl has already admitted that the only value of the Bible is a cookbook for human behavior, and the only reason to trust it for that purpose is because it’s without flaws, and the only reason to believe it has no flaws is to believe her statement that it is.

Classic circular reasoning.

Lenny wrote:

“Um, Carol, do you mean to tell me that Biblical scholars all share exactly the same opinions and interpretations?”

Not sharing exactly the same interpretations is NOT synonymous with showing that the other interpretation is, in YOUR parlance, full of .…

But Carol, my dear, they say that your interpretation is full of crap. You say that THEIRS is full of crap.

How do we tell which is which? I’ve asked this several dozen times of you, and STILL haven’t gotten anything other than “my scholars are better than their scholars, so there”.

Lenny also wrote:

“So after all your arm-waving, it all boils down to “because I say so” after all, doesn’t it.”

I asked you to compare the quality of my analysis to that of their analysis, whoever your “their” is. Now, Lenny, that is NOT the same as “because I say so”, is it?

Um, yes, Carol, it is. Why? Becausew you never get around to telling us HOW WE CAN TELL which analysis is right and which isn’t. All you do is continualyl declare that yours (or, more correctly, Landa’s) is better WITHOUT TELLING US HOW WE CAN TELL.

And this is not different in any way shape or form from “because I say so”.

Lenny continues:

“I’ve been listening to you ever since you arrived, Carol.”

Why have I not noticed?

Because you’re too busy preaching and trying to sell books, Carol. (shrug)

Then Lenny concludes:

“I have decided for myself that you are full of it”

That is fine with me. Contrary to your unsupported belief, I do not care one whit what you think about my analysis, the Bible, God, science and anything else.

Au contraire, Carol, I think you care very very much. Which is why you never shut up about it.

As I said many times, I am not here to preach. I belong to the family that does NOT, and never did, proselytize.

Do they know you’ve been preaching here for months?

Comment #80714:

“associations with

— The Bible Code — evolution denial — global warming denial — HIV/AIDS denial”

Oooh, a multiple crackpot! My favorite kind! I stand in wonder on how they are able to do it.

Lenny wrote:

“But Carol, my dear, they say that your interpretation is full of crap. You say that THEIRS is full of crap. How do we tell which is which?”

No scholar I know of ever said that, nor did I ever say that about another scholar’s work. Even if anyone in a position to make such a statement did say something like that, it is still NOT the same as SHOWING that the opponents work is full of.…

How can YOU tell? Well, Lenny, quality Biblical scholarship, like quality analysis in other areas of life, is like pornography. YOU know it when you see it…

I knew you would appreciate the analogy. Just don’t push it too far.

Torbjorn Larsson quoted an earlier post “associations with — The Bible Code — evolution denial — global warming denial — HIV/AIDS denial” Oooh, a multiple crackpot! My favorite kind! I stand in wonder on how they are able to do it.

Simple Fjord Man.…..MONEY.

Don’t forget hooking up with every other pseudo-science religio-maniac with a book to sell.

And the “Ronald McDonald” of Information theory .….my favorite is the infinitely long wave theory of “God”. (any EE will tell you that carries .….um .…ZERO INFORMATION)

I wonder when his wife will wake up that he is really doing it all just to meet those er.…. pert young blonde’s with jazus in their eyes. Nah .…she doesn’t have a thing to worry about.…she knows a devil when she sees one…and all those ‘philosophers wives’ make sure they get the final word. Still I think he’s mendacious enough to try it on. A starry eyed platonist? No. More like the Dick Cheney of ‘Information Theory’ .…keep all the mushrooms in the dark and feed them sh*t.

Carol, is this what you mean? It never occurred to me that I would know it when I see it. In fact, I don’t think I would. Porn however, I guess your right about that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Skeptic’s_Annotated_Bible

And yet another completely disingenous and deceitful post from Carol. Let’s analyze it, shall we?

Carol Wrote:

Lenny wrote:

“But Carol, my dear, they say that your interpretation is full of crap. You say that THEIRS is full of crap. How do we tell which is which?”

No scholar I know of ever said that, nor did I ever say that about another scholar’s work. Even if anyone in a position to make such a statement did say something like that, it is still NOT the same as SHOWING that the opponents work is full of.…

Here we see Carol creating a strawman to tilt at: Lenny was speaking ‘metaphorically’. On the other hand, Carol has demonstrated that she’s completely unfamiliar with metaphor (as in the tanakh. And that’s tanakh, Carol - not torah). Lenny was pointing out that both Carol and those who disagree with her (which appears to be everyone on earth except Landa %:->) claim that they are right; Lenny want’s to know how we choose between them. Carol begins by this strawman irrelevancy. And then simply refuses to answer the question:

How can YOU tell? Well, Lenny, quality Biblical scholarship, like quality analysis in other areas of life, is like pornography. YOU know it when you see it…

In other words: Carol is right because she says so - not because there is some way to actually demonstrate that her ‘viewpoint by adoption’ is correct.

So: strawman and avoiding the question. Check. What next, I wonder? Threatening to leave?

Carol the righteous tell us all about the Great Prophet Zarquon

(Yes dear reader the one and the same in H2G2 who shows up 8 seconds before the end of the universe)

Moses and Sargon - A Striking Parallel.

Scholarship ? don’t make me laugh

That would be starting with Sigmund Freud’s Moses and Monotheism I take it?

The Moses Myth, Beyond Biblical History.

Carol Just don’t push too far

…well reading the rest of your post …doesn’t leave much to the imagination does it?

How can YOU tell? Well, Lenny, quality Biblical scholarship, like quality analysis in other areas of life, is like pornography. YOU know it when you see it…

I.e., “because I say so”.

Got it.

That’s what I *thought* you meant.

“Simple Fjord Man…”

Umm. I’m a swede (“Lars-son”, not “Lars-en”) and our only real, deep (ecologically significant) fjord is shared with Norway. What we call a “fjard” is a common bay.

“…MONEY.”

Now you’re talking about politicians, I’m sure. I’m just curious how crackpots can be so deluded. Schizophrenia?

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Richard B. Hoppe published on February 18, 2006 1:29 PM.

Flock of Dodos continues was the previous entry in this blog.

NCSE’s 700 club is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter