Just thought that I would point that out.

Astrogeek, just so you know, your comment did not post on the Wormwood thread. After Juju quoted you I went back and found it in the recent postings though. Not sure what thread you posted that on.

Just thought I'd pass that on to you for future reference.

I read and considered every thought you posted.

I'm confident that you did, and I also suspect that is why you've been silent on most of it.

…an unabashed refusal to consider anything other than outright rejection of the hypothesis.

I can't do much more than correct your math and call your entire methodology into question. If I'm supposed to take you seriously in spite of that, when you can't even be bothered to respond to those very strong criticisms … well, you expect too much.

In any case, I consider this matter closed for the two reasons listed previously.

Interesting that you presume to speak for Astrogeek as well, a mere twelve hours after his only posting in our discussion.

His last post was four hours ago, at the time of this posting:

The ongoing theological discussion is off-topic for this site, which is secular in intent and nature. If we can confine ourselves to topics vis-a-vis 2012, I would appreciate it.

No, I haven't ignored it all, despite your persistent protestations. I read and considered every thought you posted. I also however recognized your diatribe for what it was - an unabashed refusal to consider anything other than outright rejection of the hypothesis. I believe that fits the very definition of "arrogance" spoken of earlier.

I had hoped we could find some common ground, but you have consistently refused to entertain the possibility.

The GreatJuju said: "2) Astrogeek seems to have had enough of this, and I'm inclined to agree that this exchange serves no purpose here."

Interesting that you presume to speak for Astrogeek as well, a mere twelve hours after his only posting in our discussion.

Well, let's put that hypothesis to the test and see if there is any possibility of agreement.

Let's not.

1) You've ignored most of what I've written so far. As such, I see little point in writing more.

2) Astrogeek seems to have had enough of this, and I'm inclined to agree that this exchange serves no purpose here.

Hail Smorkenflap!

Yes, in all things.

Well, let's put that hypothesis to the test and see if there is any possibility of agreement.
2) Offered in advance of the prophesied event.

Would you agree that Chernobyl singularly fulfills this particular criterion for prophecy?

The ongoing theological discussion is off-topic for this site, which is secular in intent and nature. If we can confine ourselves to topics vis-a-vis 2012, I would appreciate it.

Well, that's another interesting contradiction on your part, Juju. You seem to be conflicted about religion. Perhaps you were erroneously projecting your conflict onto me, so I'll clarify my own feelings on religion for you.

Methinks you are trying to manufacture conflict over this simply because you know my original statement was not made in the manner for which you attacked it, hence you attacked a straw-man. "You've repeatedly implied that you believe some magical force is at work," does not mean, "Religion is a magical force." The latter is entirely a fabrication of your own mind and bears no resemblance to what I actually said. Believing in magical forces can certainly be a part of religion, but religion per se is not a "magical force." I explained this in my last message, but you've completely ignored it, instead invoking a mysterious, unidentified "contradiction" and continuing to swing at straw. I'm not even sure how someone can make such a gross mistake, unless deliberately trying to obfuscate.

To me, God equates with truth.

To me, "God" is a nonsense term, for which the alleged object has yet to be assigned a clear, positive ontology or attached to the ostensibly objective reality in any meaningful way. Ayn Rand was correct when she called "God" a floating abstraction. That said, I'm not here to discuss the particulars of anyone's proposed deity. It's impossible for us to agree upon "truth" when you equate it to a floating abstraction, anyway.

It is a rock-solid foundation

It's actually quite squishy.

Science and mathematics are built on truth.

No, no, no. They are methods or disciplines through which one might seek and obtain truth, but they are not "built on truth." In fact, they are built on assumptions. Science in particular depends on causality (though the quantum world is challenging many of those assumptions, at least at such a micro level). Math can be proven, but a given equation is only as good as the input's accordance with reality. It's even possible to construct a logically valid syllogism that is false.

Therein, perhaps, lies the conflict many have with "faith-based" religion which is not based on truth.

Since your understanding of methods versus conclusions, means versus ends, is fundamentally flawed, this really has no relevance to anything in this discussion heretofore.

I will ask that you not make this erroneous assumption when discussing with me.

Here you're spring-boarding from your equivocation of "God" and "truth," in an attempt to imply that your religious beliefs are not, in fact, faith-based. As playing coy was your prerogative earlier, so is this, however. Suit thyself, but we will reach no conclusions here for it. Mind you, for all your effort, you never identified this "erroneous assumption," but simply stated that it exists. I think you assumed that I assumed something, when I didn't.

I look forward to discussing with you further how well you think the third trumpet fulfills each of these.

I have already pointed out the errors with such interpretation, in at least three different posts.

You are mistaken.

No, I don't think so.

"High-likelihood" is a quantitative term, but you have provided no quantitative basis for your assertion.

I have gone through your arguments with a fine-toothed comb, responding to each section in-line, correcting your math and explaining why your calculations are insufficient. I have every basis for asserting that you are likely wrong. That you have largely ignored most of my counters to your claims, choosing instead to question the logic of my interaction with you and attack a position on religion per se that I do not hold, suggests to me that you are at least tacitly aware of this.

Once you offer that we can build the discussion out to whatever the truth actually is.

At this point, I doubt that is going to happen, at least not in a manner that involves agreement. My previous post effectively refutes your position on the matter in question, but we obviously operate from completely different presuppositions, and you have chosen to steer the conversation toward an analysis of this rather than dealing with what I have said. You've stated that "God equates with truth," in your view, whereas I consider truth to be fidelity to reality insofar as it can be apprehended through the senses and analyzed through reason. This means there could be truths I don't have access to, but I do not presuppose deities as a matter of axiomatic consequence. In fact, as I've already said, I consider "God" as a concept to be incoherent, from the axiom of existence being presupposed by consciousness. As such, a notion of truth dependent upon "God" is an oxymoron, in my world-view. That's not to say I can't have a discussion with a theist, just that there comes a point where differences on certain matters are so fundamental as to preclude any useful conclusions.

Ergo, I think the position Astrogeek stated briefly above is far more amenable to discussion than your own. That said, I'm not really interested in pursuing a protracted theological debate on this board with you, especially now that you've declared in a vacuum that God = truth. To put things in perspective, assertions to the effect of Zeus = truth or Allah = truth or Pangu = truth or Smorkenflap = truth, all leave us with very little to work with.

You mis-interpret my words Astrogeek. I am not at all certain, merely convinced. That should be clear from my very first sentence in my very first post. Please do not confuse frankness with arrogance.

I am very direct. I am also humbled daily. I have survived to an old age in a young man's profession by attempting to be as truthful as possible. I question myself all the time. I am challenged by others constantly. I have to admit my mistakes and move forward. Getting ideas out in the open to shed light on a subject allows advancement. First, one has to make the case though. That is all I have done.

Adhering to conventional wisdom without substantiation, reverting to ad hominem attacks and repeating trite cliches ad nauseum are all mis-guided arguments rooted in ignorance which mostly result in stifling discussion and, in the extreme, outright oppression.

Here, I have simply put forward the evidence I have collected. Yes, I have pride in having assembled these pieces together. I understand that my conclusion is contrary to "conventional wisdom". Frankly, that is why I spelled things out in as much detail as possible.

I am attempting to reach common ground through the fundamental language of mathematics. If there's another way, please advise.

I've stayed out of this discussion, deliberately. You see, I consider myself a Christian. However, I have some theological differences with you.

I do not presume to dictate what God means in any particular passage in the Bible, but rather let the text, and the context of the books that they appear in, speak to me personally. I feel that your certainty in your interpretations during this argument have been a form of pride, and frankly, a form of the arrogance that many non-Christians feel when talking with a Christian.

I'll remind you of the context of the book of Revelation; We're not sure of the authorship, we're not even sure that the entire book was written by a single author, and we're not sure when it was written. In addition, the role of "prophecy" had quite a different spin on it at that point in time (sometime between 65 and 95 AD), meaning much the same as the word "preaching" does today. A "prophesy" was not about telling the future (except perhaps as an outline of what may happen) as much as it was about detailing the transgressions and sins of the current audience.

So, what does the book of Revelation mean? Was it a 'vision of the future', or was it a book written by a madman, or was it a coded message to the Church in Asia regarding the bloody reign of Nero, and the persecution of the Christians in Rome?

I tend to take the latter view.

Well, that's another interesting contradiction on your part, Juju. You seem to be conflicted about religion. Perhaps you were erroneously projecting your conflict onto me, so I'll clarify my own feelings on religion for you.

To me, God equates with truth. Very simple and very direct. It is a rock-solid foundation upon which everything else can be built. Sadly, truth is a commodity which is all too often in short supply. Truth builds responsibility and character, for example. One can always work and conduct business with an honest man. With a liar or egoist, not so much.

Science and mathematics are built on truth. Therein, perhaps, lies the conflict many have with "faith-based" religion which is not based on truth. I will ask that you not make this erroneous assumption when discussing with me.

The GreatJuju said: "Nicholas Covington of DB Skeptic proposes the following criteria for identifying so-called "prophecy," as opposed to guesses. See if you agree with the following (I'm paraphrasing):

1) Clear specificity.
2) Offered in advance of the prophesied event.
3) Cannot be "fulfilled" in story form by a later story, with no other verification.
4) Cannot be reasonably explained as a guess."

I agree that these four criteria appear to offer a useful foundation for discussion. I look forward to discussing with you further how well you think the third trumpet fulfills each of these.

The GreatJuju said: "As I have shown, there is a high likelihood that you are mistaken."

You are mistaken. "High-likelihood" is a quantitative term, but you have provided no quantitative basis for your assertion. Once you offer that we can build the discussion out to whatever the truth actually is.

My apologies then. They're your own words though, which I'll repeat: "You've repeatedly implied that you believe some magical force is at work … "

Nothing in that line of mine equates "religion" per se to a "magical force." That is simply your own faulty reading of what was written.

Mathematically, the odds of a single such prediction coming true short of actual prophecy approaches zero.

I would say the odds of prophecy actually existing approach zero, but I digress….

Without working through the mathematics I'd guess the probability of a single such random guess coming true would be less than one in a million.

I doubt your guess is accurate at all, but the odds of such a guess being correct are surely quite low, true enough. Of course, no biblical prophecy is anywhere near as specific as your airline scenario.

Biblical prophecy can be viewed in the same manner (disregarding self-fulfilling prophecy, of course).

No, it can't, for the aforementioned reason, in addition to the constant influx of ad hoc dreamers.

Nicholas Covington of DB Skeptic proposes the following criteria for identifying so-called "prophecy," as opposed to guesses. See if you agree with the following (I'm paraphrasing):

1) Clear specificity.
2) Offered in advance of the prophesied event.
3) Cannot be "fulfilled" in story form by a later story, with no other verification.
4) Cannot be reasonably explained as a guess.

Even 2000 years ago, the Greek vocabulary was large, so matching a name at random for a particular event carries relatively low probability.

Low, maybe, but I doubt it's as low as predicting the name of an exact airline's crash in an exact location a year in advance.

Mathematically, the total probability of a named prophecy being fulfilled is approximately the probability of the name (e.g., 1/35,000) times the number of similar events which have occurred.

Um, no. You do realize what happens when you multiply a fraction by 1 (your assumed second number later on), don't you? The result is not the fraction itself as when multiplying whole numbers. This is middle school math, if not lower. Assuming one relevant event, as you do, yields a probability of 0.000029, using your method and claimed initial value (which is suspect unto itself).

(1/35,000) * 1 = 2.9 * 10^-5
2.9 * 10^-5 = 2.9 * (1/10^5)
Result: 0.000029

Positively tiny, even less than you thought. Wow, it MUST be an "actual prophecy!" Sadly, this calculation is woefully insufficient for the task at hand. There are so many variables involved, I'm not sure a useful number is even attainable. You simply don't have enough information.

If I had to take a stab at constructing accurate values, I would at the very least consider who came up with the name, what the actual pool of potential names was (as opposed to a pulled-out-of-butt dictionary total, since it seems reasonable to assume that not every word in a given dictionary is equally likely to be chosen as a city name), and the historical city-naming trends (such as naming them after local flora, which I'll guess is not at all uncommon). In the case of Chernobyl, it might also be relevant, in addition to the factors I just mentioned, to consider the prevalence of wormwood species. These are just rough parameters. I suspect a meaningful calculation requires much more.

In the case of the Wormwood cataclysm it seems apparent from context that it was to be a cataclysm of epic proportions.

Well, yeah, apocalyptic literature tends to be like that. The Wormwood prophecy in the bible bears no resemblance to the Chernobyl disaster, aside from some very vague claims about "bitter" water and "many people" dying from it. This might reflect any number of scenarios, especially since the advent of industry. Even with the thousands of square kilometers affected by the brunt of the radiation, very few died (comparatively) in the event itself, certainly nothing I would melodramatically term "epic." Figures vary as to to how many are claimed to have developed Chernobyl-related cancers months or years after the fact, but I can't find anything by which one might reliably attribute these cancers (and the inevitable deaths, past and future) to a whopping 1/3 of rivers, as Revelation 8:10 claims.

(Granted, there have been epic wars, famine, pestilence, drought, earthquakes and volcanoes which have killed more people, but none of those fit the criteria for the third trumpet and none have been nearly so destructive to the environment. The environs within a few kilometers of the Chernobyl reactor will be off-limits to people for over a thousand years.)

The Chernobyl disaster doesn't fit the "criteria for the third trumpet," either. A volcano spewing ash into a nearby river is perhaps a better candidate for this type of reasoning. How many times has that happened in history?

The disaster zone is uninhabitable for humans but not utterly off-limits. Research has been conducted there since the accident, and some people do live on the outskirts of the worst areas, some even in the city. And as I noted in an earlier post, non-human animal life in the region, while irradiated, is booming.

In conclusion, assuming only one such epic event as "Wormwood" since the prophecy was made, yields a probability of 1/35,000. Even if one were to assume a hundred such epic cataclysms, the probability of matching the name would still be a very small 1/350.

1/35,000 is not really that small of a probability. 1/350 is not small at all. Hilariously, using your numbers and method, I've already shown that your math is wrong, which would lead to significantly smaller odds than you even realized, but I also explained why your initial value is suspect and why determining the probability you seek is not nearly as straightforward as you seem to think.

Even if we assume an arbitrarily tiny probability just for fun and giggles, why is that probability significant? All you've done in your last post is verbosely repeat your claim that the odds of Chernobyl, thus named, experiencing a nuclear disaster that you shoehorn, ad hoc, into Revelation 8:10-11, are low. If you tilt your head at a 37.82 degree angle. And squint. Hard. And make a wish.

Bottom line, as I've repeatedly implied or stated, is a very high probability that the Chernobyl melt-down fulfills the third trumpet prophecy.

As I have shown, there is a high likelihood that you are mistaken.

However now that we're finally down to why it's significant, I simply say; Well, so what?

The ancients describe (or what we believe) to be a disaster, resembling the effects of pollution (e.g.; famine, disease, so forth), but one key thing that everyone leaves out is that there are natural disasters that have the same effect, without the radiation. Volcanic eruptions can pollute water supply, food supply, air and even trigger an ice age, a disaster such as this seems more serious than Chernobyl, considering of course that a volcanic eruption effects can be felt world-wide where-as Chernobyl was a localized event.

Let's say that Chernobyl was the "third trumpet", wouldn't that make God a liar? He said that no one will know the time, but the end would come like a thief in the night. No one thinks about these things before jumping on the "doomwagon".

If Chernobyl and Wormwood are the same, is it not possible that whoever named Chernobyl took an interest in Wormwood?

Now, I don't buy into the invisible man in the sky, I don't buy into a book that contradicts itself, but if Chernobyl was the third, where are the others? When was the first one? If the first one occurred centuries ago, then wouldn't that mean that we were born into a doomed time? This is where I have to call bullshit, because mankind has this funny fascination with things blowing up.

Furthermore, I've found absolutely nothing that indicates that Chernobyl and Wormwood correspond or are the same, as you've stated and the only other place that it appears is in a website called "Endtimes". Sounds like another website where doomsayers sit and fondle each other while watching Deep Impact.

Now, don't take this the wrong way, my intentions aren't to be disrespecting, but try to change your own perspective for a moment.

What if I were to tell you, what you have told us and you really didn't buy into religion and you researched the two words and found nothing, but another doomsayer website.

You have to admit, it seems odd.

If there's anything of the Bible that I agree with, it's that the deadly sins are indeed deadly and that no one will know the time of our demise as a species.

Actually, not so much. Both refer only to artemisia, with a decided focus on either artemisia absinthia or artemisia vulgaris. The big difference seems to be whether the stalk is just green or whether it's dark green.

The GreatJuju said: "I don't view religion as "some magical force." "

My apologies then. They're your own words though, which I'll repeat: "You've repeatedly implied that you believe some magical force is at work … "

Since I never referenced magic (other than to quote you), I assumed you were referring to biblical prophesy as being invoked by some "magical force". Please let me know if you meant otherwise.

The GreatJuju said: "My point is to consider why, even if your purported connection exists, it is significant. I've said this at least twice; no compelling response so far."

OK. I understand that you're considering the significance of the purported connection and want some response from me that might help you with your considerations. I'll try.

Since the subject at hand is prophecy, the question one might ask is: What makes a particular prophecy significant? We'd probably agree that predicting rain next week is unlikely to be taken as serious prophecy anywhere, even if it comes true. The reason is that rain happens all the time and is consequently a high probability event. It even rains in Death Valley. I know because I've been there when there was rain and flash flooding. (No biblical connection, of course, but it was extremely interesting.) In contrast, predicting an airline crash for a particular airline at a certain location one year to the day in advance of an actual crash would be so prophetic that any individual doing so would probably end up in court attempting to prove they had no involvement in causing the crash.

Mathematically, the odds of a single such prediction coming true short of actual prophecy approaches zero. Without working through the mathematics I'd guess the probability of a single such random guess coming true would be less than one in a million.

Biblical prophecy can be viewed in the same manner (disregarding self-fulfilling prophecy, of course). Many bible prophecies, such as wars, can be viewed similarly to the example of rain above. War, like rain, seems to be a sort of constant with mankind. A high-probability constant I might add.

In contrast, prophecies identified by name with a proper noun in the New Testament are few and far between. Off-hand I'm drawing a blank on any others. For the sake of argument, let's assume the Apsinthos prophecy is the only such prophecy in the New Testament. Even 2000 years ago, the Greek vocabulary was large, so matching a name at random for a particular event carries relatively low probability.

Mathematically, the total probability of a named prophecy being fulfilled is approximately the probability of the name (e.g., 1/35,000) times the number of similar events which have occurred. (My apologies for not using sampling theory here, but I feel that would be an unnecessary distraction, and in any event would not change the mathematical result significantly.)

In the case of the Wormwood cataclysm it seems apparent from context that it was to be a cataclysm of epic proportions. That alone suggests that only a handful of such events have occurred since the prophecy was made. (Granted, there have been epic wars, famine, pestilence, drought, earthquakes and volcanoes which have killed more people, but none of those fit the criteria for the third trumpet and none have been nearly so destructive to the environment. The environs within a few kilometers of the Chernobyl reactor will be off-limits to people for over a thousand years.)

In conclusion, assuming only one such epic event as "Wormwood" since the prophecy was made, yields a probability of 1/35,000. Even if one were to assume a hundred such epic cataclysms, the probability of matching the name would still be a very small 1/350.

Bottom line, as I've repeatedly implied or stated, is a very high probability that the Chernobyl melt-down fulfills the third trumpet prophecy. I hope this helps to clarify at least a little.

There are about 6900 known languages on this planet, each one of those languages have a different dialect and each one of the words within those languages hold different meanings, but if you're looking with the intent of finding something then you will easily find words in one language that correspond with a word in another language. It's nothing special, it's nothing significant and it's not a divine intervention.

If you want an intervention, I recommend the CheyTac M-200 rifle.

Now, if you would be so kind, instead of rambling on, and on, in a complete circle like an idiot, explain why it is significant.

I absolutely hate it when people have pissing contests over something as ridiculous as a word.

Thank you for getting back on topic.

Someone had to steer the discussion away from your meanderings about whether it is "[logical]" for me to even address you.

I have no issue with your viewing religion as "some magical force".

I don't view religion as "some magical force." Some religious practitioners tend to invoke magical (i.e. ostensibly imaginary) forces, however, but that's a whole different animal.

Apsinthos (assuming original manuscript was Greek) and its correspondence with Chernobyl, is exactly the point isn't it?.

My point is to consider why, even if your purported connection exists, it is significant. I've said this at least twice; no compelling response so far. As for the connection itself, the truth of it doesn't really matter to me one way or the other. The odds of you and I encountering one another on a forum, during any particular time, regarding any particular subject, entail an enormous number of variables and will consequently be quite low (increasing dramatically as the discussion unfolds, of course). You experience extremely unlikely events every day, such as crossing paths with strangers in Wal-Mart. A given tome can be scoured using any number of algorithms, and most will yield highly improbable results that might include historical names and dates. Low probability and overwhelming odds do not carry any inherent degree of significance. Regardless of what your point is, that is mine.

but that hardly validates your position.

My position consists of some commentary on your first post and denying that you have attached any significance to your purported lingual connection.

The number of words you use similarly fails to validate your argument.

True. Good thing I never claimed or implied anything of the sort, eh?

My question begs for a numerical answer: … what are the odds?

Even if the odds are 10 billion to 1, why is the purported connection significant?

The data I presented, such as the fact that neither the word chernobyl, nor wormwood shows up in my Russian/English 35,000 word dictionary, suggests a numerical probability on the order of 1 in 35,000.

Let's assume that calculation is reasonably accurate (which I doubt, but it's not important). Why is it significant?

I don't know about you, but if the odds of my losing the lottery was 1 in 35,000, I'd buy a ticket.

I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say here. Is this some backdoor version of Pascal's Wager? In any case, you seem to be assuming your purported lingual connection is significant. Why?

Just putting that out there.

The GreatJuju said:
"You have, yes. You've repeatedly implied that you believe some magical force is at work, when it's quite clear that any connection existing between the terms in question is explainable simply (flora) and is utterly insignificant."

I have no issue with your viewing religion as "some magical force".

However, the flora under discussion, Apsinthos (assuming original manuscript was Greek) and its correspondence with Chernobyl, is exactly the point isn't it?. You may choose to call something insignificant, but that hardly validates your position. The number of words you use similarly fails to validate your argument.

My question begs for a numerical answer: … what are the odds?
The data I presented, such as the fact that neither the word chernobyl, nor wormwood shows up in my Russian/English 35,000 word dictionary, suggests a numerical probability on the order of 1 in 35,000.

I don't know about you, but if the odds of my losing the lottery was 1 in 35,000, I'd buy a ticket.