METHINKS IT IS A WEASEL

[ThePhy]

I have watched this thread loosely without sensing the reputed deep spiritual insight Bob has hidden here. With all the advertising of this thread Bob has done, and the critical attention it has garnered from the TOL regulars, I am reminded of those movies that are so bad that Hollywood knows they will flop if they don’t first hype them unmercifully. I am willing to wait and see if Bob has a blockbuster or just another bust in the offing. He has already been successful at garnering a lot of participation without anything but vague secretive hints at glorious revelations to come in this thread.

 

[bob b]

Fine tuning

Fine tuning

I have watched this thread loosely without sensing the reputed deep spiritual insight Bob has hidden here. With all the advertising of this thread Bob has done, and the critical attention it has garnered from the TOL regulars, I am reminded of those movies that are so bad that Hollywood knows they will flop if they don’t first hype them unmercifully. I am willing to wait and see if Bob has a blockbuster or just another bust in the offing. He has already been successful at garnering a lot of participation without anything but vague secretive hints at glorious revelations to come in this thread.

I have "fine tuned" my example to satisfy the "nit pickers" here, even though the previous minor flaws did not affect the point of the "parable" in the least. What puzzles me is how otherwise intelligent (perhaps even brilliant) unbelievers here can not see the point of this example. Jesus was certainly right when He observed that few saw the point of his parables.
----------------------
WEASEL

Question: How many “good” words are there in English for the various numbers of letters, two, three, four, five and six etc. ? What then is the probability p that having one particular “good” word that a random letter change in that same word will result in another "good" word ?

Source for number of 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, etc. letter English words = WORDOX Dictionary:
http://aaron.doosh.net/lexicon/05LetterWords.html

p = (#good words -1) / (#possible words -1)

TWO LETTER WORDS
96 out of 26x26=576
p = 0.165

THREE LETTER WORDS
956 out of 26x26x26=17,576
p = 0.0543

FOUR LETTER WORDS
4155 out of 676x676=456,976
p= 0. 0091

FIVE LETTER WORDS
9936 out of 26x26x26x26x26=11,881,376
p= 0.00084

SIX LETTER WORDS
21,384 out of 17576x17576=308,915,776
p= 0.000069

SEVEN LETTER WORDS
In process
p= 0.00000??

Summarizing:
2 - p= 0.165
3 - p= 0.0543
4 - p= 0.0091
5 - p= 0.00084
6 - p= 0.000069
7 – p= 0.00000??

--------------

Should I reveal the meaning of the parable in the Truth Smacker's area?

 

[fool]

Bob;
Your "parable" is false because it ignores the fact that new words are created that didn't exist before.
For example, "wookie" wasen't a word before Star Wars, it wasen't on the list, now it is.

 

[Jukia]

Still waiting for bob b to explain his parable to those of us too dense to figure it out ourselves.

 

[fool]

Bob;
Your "parable" is false because it ignores the fact that new words are created that didn't exist before.
For example, "wookie" wasen't a word before Star Wars, it wasen't on the list, now it is.

Bob is defineing a "good" word as one that existed before.
So in that he has gone so far away from a mutation analogy that his parable is useless.

 

[ThePhy]

I don’t see a lot of value in trying to do a technical analysis of the content of Bob's example, when I don’t know what he his really trying to get at with it. It looks similar to some of Spetner’s ideas. If Bob is going to say his problem is relevant to some aspect of evolution or abio, then he will need to show that there are not substantive differences between his problem and what he is trying to show. So far, I see only a question about forming words – hardly something that grabs my attention. Bob is right about Jesus’ parables being hidden from many, though. Heck, I am still stuck in Genesis trying to figure out how to make a snake talk. That should be a very up-front thing to demonstrate, nothing requiring hidden meanings behind it (unless it really didn’t happen). Like I already said, Bob could walk away from this thread right now comfortable in the knowledge that he riled up a bunch of posters who tried to attack his idea – an idea that he hasn’t even elucidated to us less-discerning types. Quit giving him free publicity. Make him come up with the goods or let the thread die.

 

[bob b]

I don’t see a lot of value in trying to do a technical analysis of the content of Bob's example, when I don’t know what he his really trying to get at with it. It looks similar to some of Spetner’s ideas. If Bob is going to say his problem is relevant to some aspect of evolution or abio, then he will need to show that there are not substantive differences between his problem and what he is trying to show. So far, I see only a question about forming words – hardly something that grabs my attention. Bob is right about Jesus’ parables being hidden from many, though. Heck, I am still stuck in Genesis trying to figure out how to make a snake talk. That should be a very up-front thing to demonstrate, nothing requiring hidden meanings behind it (unless it really didn’t happen). Like I already said, Bob could walk away from this thread right now comfortable in the knowledge that he riled up a bunch of posters who tried to attack his idea – an idea that he hasn’t even elucidated to us less-discerning types. Quit giving him free publicity. Make him come up with the goods or let the thread die.

See the new thread, The Source of Novels.

 

[bob b]

Bob;
Your "parable" is false because it ignores the fact that new words are created that didn't exist before.
For example, "wookie" wasen't a word before Star Wars, it wasen't on the list, now it is.

Stop it, you're killing me.
:mock: :mock: :mock: :mock: :mock: :mock: :mock: :mock:

 

[ThePhy]

See the new thread, The Source of Novels.

Why is this beginning to smell like a case of you seeing how many threads you can drag posters into without really having to come up with anything defensible? If you have something to say that doesn’t require a Christian fundamentalist inspected and certified and registered parable decoder, then let me know. I really prefer to have ideas clearly expressed and evaluated. If you don’t have anything that you are willing to expose to examination, then please don’t ask me to waste my time. You have been eminently adroit at that already. (Is this really the way you used to do your engineering?)

 

[SUTG]

I have "fine tuned" my example to satisfy the "nit pickers" here

Really? I see that you changed the problem by adding the phrase "in the same word". Too bad the math is still wrong.

 

[bob b]

Really? I see that you changed the problem by adding the phrase "in the same word". Too bad the math is still wrong.

Really?

I thought I fixed the flaw. Of course the numbers are not all that critical, but the "point" is.

 

[bob b]

Why is this beginning to smell like a case of you seeing how many threads you can drag posters into without really having to come up with anything defensible? If you have something to say that doesn’t require a Christian fundamentalist inspected and certified and registered parable decoder, then let me know. I really prefer to have ideas clearly expressed and evaluated. If you don’t have anything that you are willing to expose to examination, then please don’t ask me to waste my time. You have been eminently adroit at that already. (Is this really the way you used to do your engineering?)

I did sometimes plant "seeds" (ideas) and later got to see them sprout.

It was not uncommon for me to suggest something to the group in a meeting, have the naysayers shout it down (figuratively) and then some months later have someone announce to me their "great new idea", with no recollection regarding the previous incident and their original negative attitude.

I always smiled, and congratulated them for coming up with such a great new idea.

Works almost every time.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Bob;
Your "parable" is false because it ignores the fact that new words are created that didn't exist before.
For example, "wookie" wasen't a word before Star Wars, it wasen't on the list, now it is.

Wookiee has two e's, and actually it did exist before Star Wars. In THX-1138 someone on the radio says "I think I just ran over a wookiee back there."

 

[bob b]

parable, the term translates the Hebrew word "mashal"—a term denoting a metaphor, or an enigmatic saying or an analogy. In the Greco-Roman rhetorical tradition, however, "parables" were illustrative narrative examples. Jewish teachers of the 1st cent. A.D. made use of comparisons in narrative form to clarify scripture. As used in the Gospels, the "parable" not only denotes metaphors, analogies, and enigmatic statements, but also short illustrative narratives. In Jesus' parables, the speaker compares an observable, natural, or human phenomenon to the Kingdom (i.e. the rule) of God. Some of these challenge and mystify or even attack the hearer. Other parables are allegories. The major themes of the parables of Jesus include the contrast between the old and new age now dawning in the ministry of Jesus; the necessity of radical decisions; the gradual but sure growth of the Kingdom of God on earth; God's way of relating to people; and God's invitation for people to enter his Kingdom.

 

[aharvey]

I have "fine tuned" my example to satisfy the "nit pickers" here, even though the previous minor flaws did not affect the point of the "parable" in the least. What puzzles me is how otherwise intelligent (perhaps even brilliant) unbelievers here can not see the point of this example. Jesus was certainly right when He observed that few saw the point of his parables.
----------------------
WEASEL

Question: How many “good” words are there in English for the various numbers of letters, two, three, four, five and six etc. ? What then is the probability p that having one particular “good” word that a random letter change in that same word will result in another "good" word ?

Source for number of 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, etc. letter English words = WORDOX Dictionary:
http://aaron.doosh.net/lexicon/05LetterWords.html

p = (#good words -1) / (#possible words -1)

TWO LETTER WORDS
96 out of 26x26=576
p = 0.165

THREE LETTER WORDS
956 out of 26x26x26=17,576
p = 0.0543

FOUR LETTER WORDS
4155 out of 676x676=456,976
p= 0. 0091

FIVE LETTER WORDS
9936 out of 26x26x26x26x26=11,881,376
p= 0.00084

SIX LETTER WORDS
21,384 out of 17576x17576=308,915,776
p= 0.000069

SEVEN LETTER WORDS
In process
p= 0.00000??

Summarizing:
2 - p= 0.165
3 - p= 0.0543
4 - p= 0.0091
5 - p= 0.00084
6 - p= 0.000069
7 – p= 0.00000??

For those who are interested in how to actually calculate the p values for the question bob has posed, using the two-letter example:

For each "good" word (not each "possible" word), calculate the probability that a single random letter change in either the first or second position will generate a known "good" word. The number of "possible" words never comes into play. There is no a priori way to calculate these probabilities because they are dependent on direct comparison with a pre-established list of known "good" words. Therefore you have to calculate the probabilities for each "good" word, sum these (assuming that every "good" word is equally likely to experience the random letter change), and divide that sum by the number of "good" words.

In the present case, this leads to a calculated overall probability of 0.2545 that having one particular “good” word that a random letter change in that same word will result in another "good" word. I tested this by doing 50 replications of 100 independent random letter changes each, and averaged 27.7+ 4.6 "good" words per each 100 changes.

Change the criteria for "good" words, you change the probabilities. Reduce the number of alternate states (e.g., from 26 letters down to, say, 4) will increase the probabilities. Relax the assumption that all changes are equally likely and you are most likely to increase the probabilities.

As far as guessing what you want us to see, bob, well, I'm sure it wasn't your intellectual laziness or your lack of analytical skills, but these are the most obvious elements of this 'example'. I can look at this post and see many different potential patterns, knowing where you're coming from I can make some educated guesses as to what you are hinting at, but I can't imagine why you think anyone would be interested in engaging in "well, bob, could it be this?" "nope, try again! " "okay, then how about this?" "close, but no cigar!" ad nauseum. If you have an actual point, please make it, and spare us the games. At least when it comes to parables, you're no Jesus!

 

[Jukia]

At least when it comes to parables, you're no Jesus!

AMEN!

 

[Turbo]

I love this.

Johnny can't rise out of his thinking "rut" either.

He also can't spell the simple French I word that he pretentiously used.

 

[fool]

Wookiee has two e's, and actually it did exist before Star Wars. In THX-1138 someone on the radio says "I think I just ran over a wookiee back there."

Was it a word before THX-1138?

 

[Turbo]

Is this the "Become a believer and all will be revealed to you" spiel? Can anyone think of a 4 lette word---CULT---perhaps?
The KoolAid is available at bob b's house. The space ships are coming next week so drink up now.
And who is doing the hiding? Is that God's plan.
bob b what have you been smoking?
Pardon me if I bail from this thread.

This is rich coming from a guy who attributes his own claimed belief in Christ's resurrection to "brain washing--perhaps."

 

[fool]

This is rich coming from a guy who attributes his own claimed belief in Christ's resurrection to "brain washing--perhaps."

Tsk, Tsk, Turbo.
Quote mining makes you look like a trickster.
He said this;

However there is a difference between this "belief" and my inability to believe in a 6000 year old universe, 6 day creation, the Flood, etc. There is substantial independent evidence that shows the universe & earth are far older etc. There is evidence and a mechanism for evolution, etc.
Belief in God goes beyond such substantial independent evidence and in my case is a function of early and continuous education (brain washing--perhaps), some thought, reflection, etc. Since I took that leap of faith the jump to belief in Christianity was not as long a jump.
There is no independent evidence (other than the fact that it is absurd/miraculous) for Jesus resurrection as there is independent evidence for the age of the universe, evolution, etc. Therefore, it is easier, and I think rational (once you get beyond the basic irrationality of "faith") to be able to say, I agree with the fact of the death and resurrection of Jesus about 2000 years ago but do not buy a literal interpretation of Genesis.