JAMES RANDI 5 QUESTION TEST
in [Math]
|
From: Sylvia Else on 4 May 2010 06:47 On 4/05/2010 8:22 PM, |-|ercules wrote: > "Sylvia Else" <sylvia(a)not.at.this.address> wrote ... >> Q. Will the world explode on Sunday? >> >> A. The earliest generalisation. >> >> Justification: "The earliest generalisation about the world was that >> it would explode every Sunday." >> >> As a proof of the existence of channelling, it leaves much to be desired. > > What kind of answers *would* you accept as proof of channeling? "Yes, the world will explode on Sunday." "No, the world won't explode on Sunday." "The world will explode on Saturday." "Do you mean the physical world, or the spritual world?" "The idea that the world can explode is nonsense." Even simple "Yes" and "No" would be acceptable if they are repeatable. Single instances would be questionable because the words could appear by chance. > > It's obvious the answers are perfectly in context and address the question > logically with the correct and best answer, unlike your silly counter > examples. > > You CANNOT do any better! I asked if Adam and Eve were alive and the > answer was "after creating both". > > What's your counter example to that? > > Q Can you make me a couple slices of toast? > A After creating both. > > puleeeze you are so blind. > > wasted enough time with blind heathens, the evidence is clear and the > future is already set. > > Ask yourself these 2 questions: > 1 Is belief in religion crazy? > 2 Is skepticism wrong about religion? > > Then find 10 random quotes for each, pick your 2 best answers, and > compare them to mine. You seem to think your answers are good matches. I cannot for the life of me see why. They barely match at all, and even then it requires a stretch. Sylvia.
From: |-|ercules on 4 May 2010 07:32 "Sylvia Else" <sylvia(a)not.at.this.address> wrote > You seem to think your answers are good matches. I cannot for the life > of me see why. They barely match at all, and even then it requires a > stretch. > > Sylvia. Do it yourself. There are 1,000,000,000,000,000 different 5 word phrases with all common words. This is because there are in the order of 1,000,000,000,000,000 different topics that can be described in 5 words. Getting an answer match a question randomly rarely occurs in nature. I said "ARE ADAM AND EVE ALIVE TODAY?" The answer was "AFTER CREATING BOTH OF THOSE" I cannot see the rationale in your comments. You're welcome to put a figure on the odds broken. Let's hear it Sylvia. the odds of that answer being "After creating both of those" is what? Flick a book yourself until you get a BETTER answer, and that is the odds! Herc
From: Sylvia Else on 4 May 2010 08:14 On 4/05/2010 9:32 PM, |-|ercules wrote: > "Sylvia Else" <sylvia(a)not.at.this.address> wrote >> You seem to think your answers are good matches. I cannot for the life >> of me see why. They barely match at all, and even then it requires a >> stretch. >> >> Sylvia. > > Do it yourself. There are 1,000,000,000,000,000 different 5 word phrases > with all common words. This is because there are in the order of > 1,000,000,000,000,000 different topics that can be described in 5 words. > > Getting an answer match a question randomly rarely occurs in nature. > > I said "ARE ADAM AND EVE ALIVE TODAY?" > > The answer was "AFTER CREATING BOTH OF THOSE" > > I cannot see the rationale in your comments. > > You're welcome to put a figure on the odds broken. > > Let's hear it Sylvia. > > the odds of that answer being "After creating both of those" is what? > > Flick a book yourself until you get a BETTER answer, and that is the odds! > > Herc Let's stick to the question and answer in your video. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt in assuming that you post all the videos you make, not just those that seem to you to be evidence to support your position, but I don't see why I should let you get away with abandoning a question and answer that you're having difficulty supporting. Sylvia.
From: |-|ercules on 4 May 2010 08:32 "Sylvia Else" <sylvia(a)not.at.this.address> wrote > On 4/05/2010 9:32 PM, |-|ercules wrote: >> "Sylvia Else" <sylvia(a)not.at.this.address> wrote >>> You seem to think your answers are good matches. I cannot for the life >>> of me see why. They barely match at all, and even then it requires a >>> stretch. >>> >>> Sylvia. >> >> Do it yourself. There are 1,000,000,000,000,000 different 5 word phrases >> with all common words. This is because there are in the order of >> 1,000,000,000,000,000 different topics that can be described in 5 words. >> >> Getting an answer match a question randomly rarely occurs in nature. >> >> I said "ARE ADAM AND EVE ALIVE TODAY?" >> >> The answer was "AFTER CREATING BOTH OF THOSE" >> >> I cannot see the rationale in your comments. >> >> You're welcome to put a figure on the odds broken. >> >> Let's hear it Sylvia. >> >> the odds of that answer being "After creating both of those" is what? >> >> Flick a book yourself until you get a BETTER answer, and that is the odds! >> >> Herc > > Let's stick to the question and answer in your video. I'm giving you the > benefit of the doubt in assuming that you post all the videos you make, > not just those that seem to you to be evidence to support your position, > but I don't see why I should let you get away with abandoning a question > and answer that you're having difficulty supporting. > > Sylvia. I don't care what you think. If you think The Earliest Generalizations and We cannot deduce and assert all facts don't support religion and suggesting how research might be continued answers skeptics "barely match" then I can't help you. Dozens of people have posted the channels are perfect, read the bottom of genesisproof and 2nd site review in hercshome. You just continually ignore my points and fail to provide any stats or reasoning on probability of phrase matching. Yours is a foregone conclusion and a sad one at that. Herc
From: Sylvia Else on 4 May 2010 08:54
On 4/05/2010 10:32 PM, |-|ercules wrote: > "Sylvia Else" <sylvia(a)not.at.this.address> wrote >> On 4/05/2010 9:32 PM, |-|ercules wrote: >>> "Sylvia Else" <sylvia(a)not.at.this.address> wrote >>>> You seem to think your answers are good matches. I cannot for the life >>>> of me see why. They barely match at all, and even then it requires a >>>> stretch. >>>> >>>> Sylvia. >>> >>> Do it yourself. There are 1,000,000,000,000,000 different 5 word phrases >>> with all common words. This is because there are in the order of >>> 1,000,000,000,000,000 different topics that can be described in 5 words. >>> >>> Getting an answer match a question randomly rarely occurs in nature. >>> >>> I said "ARE ADAM AND EVE ALIVE TODAY?" >>> >>> The answer was "AFTER CREATING BOTH OF THOSE" >>> >>> I cannot see the rationale in your comments. >>> >>> You're welcome to put a figure on the odds broken. >>> >>> Let's hear it Sylvia. >>> >>> the odds of that answer being "After creating both of those" is what? >>> >>> Flick a book yourself until you get a BETTER answer, and that is the >>> odds! >>> >>> Herc >> >> Let's stick to the question and answer in your video. I'm giving you >> the benefit of the doubt in assuming that you post all the videos you >> make, not just those that seem to you to be evidence to support your >> position, but I don't see why I should let you get away with >> abandoning a question and answer that you're having difficulty >> supporting. >> >> Sylvia. > > > I don't care what you think. If you think The Earliest Generalizations and > We cannot deduce and assert all facts don't support religion and suggesting > how research might be continued answers skeptics "barely match" then I > can't help you. > > Dozens of people have posted the channels are perfect, read the bottom of > genesisproof and 2nd site review in hercshome. > > You just continually ignore my points and fail to provide any stats or > reasoning > on probability of phrase matching. Yours is a foregone conclusion and a > sad one at that. > > Herc Before I could even start to provide stats that would mean anything to you on the probability of phrases matching, we'd have to have some agreement on an objective way of judging whether a phrase matches. Clearly such an agreement is likely to be a long time coming. Rather than railing at me, you should be thinking about methods of proof that are not vulnerable to the cricitism that they're subjective, or, as Randi put it, examples of ex post-facto rationalisation. You once posted a link to a decription of a protocol that made some sense. You should use that rather than persisting in attempting to persuade people that there are matches when those people cant't see them, since the latter is going to be a futile exercise, particularly when it comes to convincing the likes of Randi. Sylvia. |