Another thought about the hatch
Johnn...@webtv.net
hatch together with the mysterious events that seem to surround them.
..Perhaps the numbers do represent the lat. and long. of the hatch.
..Simply because that was the original location that the military
installed it-- or whatever is under it. ...And perhaps the hatch was
the means of escape from a WW2 underground bunker, or post war nuclear
station. ...But, could it be possible that an alien life form has now
taken over the deserted island to use as a base for human observation.
The aliens perhaps spotted the numbers of the location (on the hatch,
for example), and have empowered them to draw specific humans for
experimentation purposes. The "survivors" that have arrived (or rather,
were destined to arrive) on the island, were guided there via implants.
..Implants that were tuned to the specific numbered code. The younger
ones: Alex, and Walt... And now, Aaron, do not have the implants, so
have been (will be) abducted to have them either implanted... Or to be
taken for other purposes, such as procreation (alex?). ...The aliens
have their protection for the island from undesirables via the bears and
security system. And, perhaps they've got some cloaking device in
operation, so no authorities know the island exists.
Just a few thoughts, 'cause as far as numbers go (in our mundane world),
there is nothing special about any of them. Further, there is a
supernatural beast(s) lurking about the jungle. (in spite of what the
producers would have us believe) ...And further... The people on the
island would have needed some supernatural assistance in order to
survive such a horrendous crash.. ...Jon
Ryan Robbins
news:26166-42...@storefull-3251.bay.webtv.net...
>But, could it be possible that an alien life form has now
> taken over the deserted island to use as a base for human observation.
> The aliens perhaps spotted the numbers of the location (on the hatch,
> for example), and have empowered them to draw specific humans for
> experimentation purposes.
THERE ARE NO ALIENS. Except maybe those humans who are in a country
illegally.
The rules, as presented by the producers, are: No time travel, no aliens,
everything has a plausible explanation.
Johnn...@webtv.net
>THERE ARE NO ALIENS. Except maybe
> those humans who are in a country illegally.
>
>The rules, as presented by the producers, are:
> No time travel, no aliens, everything has a
> plausible explanation.
we've seen so far. ...If you can come up with a better explanation to
tie "everything" together, please post it. ...The way I see it, the only
plausible explanation other than alien or divine intervention, is the
whole story has to be a dream. ...Jon
Ryan Robbins
<Johnn...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:21003-42A...@storefull-3257.bay.webtv.net...
redbi...@verizon.net (Ryan Robbins) wrote:
>THERE ARE NO ALIENS. Except maybe
> those humans who are in a country illegally.
>
>The rules, as presented by the producers, are:
> No time travel, no aliens, everything has a
> plausible explanation.
Nonsense!! ...There is no plausible explanation for some of the things
we've seen so far. ...If you can come up with a better explanation to
tie "everything" together, please post it.
Who said anything about tying everything together with one explanation?
Johnn...@webtv.net
>Who said anything about tying everything
> together with one explanation?
ridiculous, such as winches, ropes, and pulleys that have the ability to
come alive, and do the impossible. ...Or to passing off the numbers that
by a gazillion to one odds, can coincidentally appear at every turn in
peoples lives..... Or the ability for "fragile" humans to survive a jet
crash, when the metal plane body itself is twisted around like a
pretzel. ...Or black smoke that implies a sentient entity, and can
disappear instantly in mid-air like it was sucked into a miniature black
hole. ...Or how a ship can end up inland like Dorothy's house, and yet
still (relatively speaking) be in one piece. Or.... Or... Or...
..Jon
Steven L.
Johnn...@webtv.net wrote:
> redbi...@verizon.net (Ryan Robbins) wrote:
>
>>THERE ARE NO ALIENS. Except maybe
>>those humans who are in a country illegally.
>>
>>The rules, as presented by the producers, are:
>>No time travel, no aliens, everything has a
>>plausible explanation.
>
> Nonsense!! ...There is no plausible explanation for some of the things
> we've seen so far. ...If you can come up with a better explanation to
> tie "everything" together, please post it.
The issue is that what is plausible for the writers may not be so
plausible for the more informed viewers.
For example, the writers may think it's plausible that all those
occurrences of Hurley's magic numbers could be dismissed as an
improbable though not impossible coincidence. And many viewers may be
content with that "explanation." The problem is that I've thought about
the actual mathematical probabilities involved and I've decided the odds
against the totality of magic number occurrences we've seen in Season
One has now reached something like several quintillion to one. So while
the writers might think that "coincidence" is an adequate explanation, I
do not.
The same thing is true for the survivability of the plane crash. The
writers may have cynically decided that the vast majority of viewers
won't realize that it's impossible to survive when a plane loses its
tail at altitude. And those viewers will be satisfied to call it a
fortunate fluke and be done with it. But there will be this minority of
viewers (including myself) who know what the stabilizers on a plane are
for, and we won't be satisfied with that "explanation" either.
--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
Johnn...@webtv.net
>The same thing is true for the survivability of
> the plane crash. The writers may have
> cynically decided that the vast majority of
> viewers won't realize that it's impossible to
> survive when a plane loses its tail at altitude.
> And those viewers will be satisfied to call it a
> fortunate fluke and be done with it. But there
> will be this minority of viewers (including
> myself) who know what the stabilizers on a
> plane are for, and we won't be satisfied with
> that "explanation" either.
accident. It ran off the highway, and completely disintigrated. Inside
was an 80 year old man, and his 90 year old "invalid" "girl friend?" --
(she was lying on the bed in the back). When the passers by came over
after the accident to see who all had died, they found the man still in
his seat, and the woman was still on the mattress (on the ground) some
60 feet away. Neither of them had a scratch on them. Miracles do
happen, but in the case of this series.... Nobody would be found alive
from such a crash. It's almost laughable how someone like Boone can
plummet 30,000 feet, and not have a mark on him, yet a 30 foot (or less)
fall in the other plane, and he's injured beyond help.. ....Jon
Steven L.
Johnn...@webtv.net wrote:
If you search the Google archive of this NG, you will find reasonable
theories offered to explain *all* of the mysteries you have listed
here--except one:
The repeated occurrences of Hurley's magic numbers, the odds against
which have now reached quintillions to one. There are theories about
what the numbers might mean; but I have seen no theories on why they
keep showing up so often around the world.
The only explanation I have thought of, is an "Invasion Of The Body
Snatchers" scenario: The officials who run the lottery in Hurley's home
state, the hotel room clerk who assigned Hurley room 2342, the Oceanic
Airline official who chose number 815 for the flight and assigned it to
gate 23, and even the six soccer girls at the airport wearing Hurley's
numbers, aren't humans. They're creatures who grew out of seed pods,
and the numbers 23, 42, 815 are important to that species.
But since Abrams/Lindelof have said there are no aliens in Lost, my
theory can't be right. So on that one, we may be forced to just call
the magic numbers fate or karma or destiny--or God.
J. Anthony Crumpton
Ryan, I know it's on record, but do you believe them? I mean,
personally?
I know many of us speculate within the boundaries which have been set
aside. I know it would be upset if they changed the rules on us.
-- J. Anthony Crumpton
"A good friend will help you move. A really good friend will help you move a body."
Johnn...@webtv.net
>The only explanation I have thought of, is an
I have never heard anyone say they've seen a body develop from a pod.
...However, there have been many "apparent" alien abductions. Some are
down-right uncanny like the Betty and Barney Hill abduction from the
60s. Apparently one of them drew a map of a star system that was on the
wall in the UFO. ...The astronomers said such a star system did not
exist. ...However, when computers of the 80s could re-configure the
stars so they could see the sky as viewed from a different part of the
galaxy, they found out the drawing was quite accurate; and in fact,
depicted the part of the galaxy as stated by the Hills.
With regards to what is or isn't in the series... Perhaps the producers
were purposely twisting the words around when they said: "no aliens
involved". ...So when it turns out that it is creatures from Mars, or
something, and everyone complains. They'll say: "Well we told you it
wasn't aliens... These creatures were born, and live on the island.
..So what if they look like black smoke." ...Jon
Steven L.
Johnn...@webtv.net wrote:
> sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net (Steven L.) wrote:
>
>>The only explanation I have thought of, is an
>>"Invasion Of The Body Snatchers" scenario.
>
> I have never heard anyone say they've seen a body develop from a pod.
Please tell me this was a joke.
Johnn...@webtv.net
>>I have never heard anyone say they've seen
>> a body develop from a pod.
>
>Please tell me this was a joke.
have thought of, is an "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" scenario."
..What are you saying? ...You had a senior moment? ...Jon
Melroseman
> If you search the Google archive of this NG, you will find reasonable
> theories offered to explain *all* of the mysteries you have listed
> here--except one:
>
> The repeated occurrences of Hurley's magic numbers, the odds against
> which have now reached quintillions to one. There are theories about
> what the numbers might mean; but I have seen no theories on why they
> keep showing up so often around the world.
>
> The only explanation I have thought of, is an "Invasion Of The Body
> Snatchers" scenario: The officials who run the lottery in Hurley's home
> state, the hotel room clerk who assigned Hurley room 2342, the Oceanic
> Airline official who chose number 815 for the flight and assigned it to
> gate 23, and even the six soccer girls at the airport wearing Hurley's
> numbers, aren't humans. They're creatures who grew out of seed pods,
> and the numbers 23, 42, 815 are important to that species.
>
> But since Abrams/Lindelof have said there are no aliens in Lost, my
> theory can't be right. So on that one, we may be forced to just call
> the magic numbers fate or karma or destiny--or God.
Who said there would be no aliens? All I recall is Lindelof sayind, "no
spacecrafts, no time travel." There could be aliens without their ship.
--
New to alt.tv.lost? Please read the FAQ before posting:
http://groups-beta.google.com/groups?q=ALT.TV.LOST+FAQ+EDITION
Steven L.
Melroseman wrote:
Well, in that case, if you think about it, an "Invasion of the Body
Snatchers" would explain just about everything:
Flight 815 lost its tail and *all* the passengers got killed. The
"survivors" we're seeing aren't the original passengers, but grew out of
seed pods.
The crippled Locke is dead and the new Locke who grew from a seed pod
can walk.
All the occurrences of 23 and 815 around the world are created by the
seed pod replacements for the humans--even those six soccer girls came
from seed pods. Oceanic Airlines has been taken over by seed pod people
who gave the flight the number 815 and assigned it to gate 23. (23 and
815 are of significance to the seed pod species.)
The "madness illness" that Danielle said claimed the members of her
expedition wasn't a real illness. She was just noticing the changes in
behavior as unknown to her, each of the members of her expedition got
replaced by seed pod people. She said The Others were the "carriers."
They weren't carrying germs, they were carrying seed pods to her
expedition to replace them with seed pod people. Danielle may be the
only one on the island who is still a true human (not pod person).
The promo for Season Two on that website had the tag line "They're Not
The Survivors They Thought They Were," which would certainly be true if
the original passengers are dead and the folks we've been watching grew
from seed pods.
The castaways are curiously lethargic--they never volunteer information
and they don't go exploring the rest of the island. That's because they
aren't human beings with human initiative. They're seed pod creatures.
Melroseman
> Well, in that case, if you think about it, an "Invasion of the Body
> Snatchers" would explain just about everything:
>
> Flight 815 lost its tail and *all* the passengers got killed. The
> "survivors" we're seeing aren't the original passengers, but grew out of
> seed pods.
> The crippled Locke is dead and the new Locke who grew from a seed pod
> can walk.
That's what I said about Locke when he did his Orange Smile. I said it
was an alien showing us its true form for a second.
> All the occurrences of 23 and 815 around the world are created by the
> seed pod replacements for the humans--even those six soccer girls came
> from seed pods. Oceanic Airlines has been taken over by seed pod people
> who gave the flight the number 815 and assigned it to gate 23. (23 and
> 815 are of significance to the seed pod species.)
> The "madness illness" that Danielle said claimed the members of her
> expedition wasn't a real illness. She was just noticing the changes in
> behavior as unknown to her, each of the members of her expedition got
> replaced by seed pod people. She said The Others were the "carriers."
> They weren't carrying germs, they were carrying seed pods to her
> expedition to replace them with seed pod people. Danielle may be the
> only one on the island who is still a true human (not pod person).
> The promo for Season Two on that website had the tag line "They're Not
> The Survivors They Thought They Were," which would certainly be true if
> the original passengers are dead and the folks we've been watching grew
> from seed pods.
> The castaways are curiously lethargic--they never volunteer information
> and they don't go exploring the rest of the island. That's because they
> aren't human beings with human initiative. They're seed pod creatures.
I don't think they are all pods yet. Remember, Danielle warned Sayid to
watch them closely... Locke is definitely one, and others will soon
follow... or at least they will soon be completely overtaken by their
inner aliens.
Ryan Robbins
"Melroseman" <melro...@yahooNOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:42a27...@netscape.ca...
> Steven L. wrote:
>
>> Well, in that case, if you think about it, an "Invasion of the Body
>> Snatchers" would explain just about everything:
>>
>> Flight 815 lost its tail and *all* the passengers got killed. The
>> "survivors" we're seeing aren't the original passengers, but grew out of
>> seed pods.
>> The crippled Locke is dead and the new Locke who grew from a seed pod can
>> walk.
>
> That's what I said about Locke when he did his Orange Smile. I said it was
> an alien showing us its true form for a second.
I saw that scene for the first time Wednesday, and I have to say it looked
like... a man with an orange peel in his mouth trying to cheer up a pregnant
woman.
Ryan Robbins
news:se54a11la5s9p6mph...@4ax.com...
> Ryan, I know it's on record, but do you believe them? I mean,
> personally?
Yes, I do. They have not revealed anything that has gone against the rules
as they set them.
Steven L.
I'm saying Lost is fiction, and I offered a sci-fi scenario to account
for the fictional events we've seen.
You retorted by saying that nothing like "Invasion of the Body
Snatchers" occurs in real life, and offered UFO pseudo-science as if
that is more credible. It isn't. Everything--EVERYTHING--about UFOs
since the first flying saucer sightings in 1947 is a combination of mass
delusion and erroneous, sloppy thinking. UFOs are no more credible than
the genie in Aladdin's lamp.
Melroseman
> "Melroseman" <melro...@yahooNOSPAM.com> wrote in message
>
>>That's what I said about Locke when he did his Orange Smile. I said it was
>>an alien showing us its true form for a second.
>
> I saw that scene for the first time Wednesday, and I have to say it looked
> like... a man with an orange peel in his mouth trying to cheer up a pregnant
> woman.
Oh, so Kate's pregnant??? Did you not see part 1 of the pilot until this
past week or was it just that scene?
Ryan Robbins
> Oh, so Kate's pregnant??? Did you not see part 1 of the pilot until this
> past week or was it just that scene?
My mistake. I thought the next shot was of Claire.
Fred Ellis
The scene you are referring to is where Claire is taking a shoe off one
of the dead passengers. Jack told Claire in a previous scene that if
she is to go with him to find the front part of the plane, she would
need to change her shoes. As Claire starts to take a shoe off she looks
up and sees Locke standing nearby. Locke smiles at her with the orange
peel in his mouth. Then Claire stands as she picks up the shoes she
removed from the dead passenger and walks away.
Fred Ellis
--
Who do you serve. . . . And who do you trust?
(To e-mail me, remove the X from my address)
Johnn...@webtv.net
>You retorted by saying that nothing like
> "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" occurs in
> real life, and offered UFO pseudo-science as
> if that is more credible. It isn't.
> Everything--EVERYTHING--about UFOs
> since the first flying saucer sightings in 1947
> is a combination of mass delusion and
> erroneous, sloppy thinking. UFOs are no
> more credible than the genie in Aladdin's
> lamp.
..Actually, I tend to agree with you. Personally, I have to see a UFO
in order to really believe in them -- And I ain't seen one yet. ...What
I'm implying is that insofar as the producers claim the series is based
on believable events (or whatever), I think using the UFO/alien
reasoning for an explanation, would be a little more acceptable to the
general viewing audience, than say, trying to force the idea that cloned
humans can grow from seed pods. In other words... If I said to my
next door neighbor: "I just saw an alien space craft." ...He wouldn't
think me quite as goofy as if I had just announced: " ...My uncle Ira
isn't really himself today. In fact, just last night he sprouted from a
seed pod." ...The thing is, whether or not UFOs exist, they "have"
become an acceptable probability to most people... Same thing with
ghosts, and many religious aspects, too. ...Jon
Melroseman
> Ryan Robbins wrote:
>
>>"Melroseman" <melro...@yahooNOSPAM.com> wrote in message
>>
>>>Oh, so Kate's pregnant??? Did you not see part 1 of the pilot until this
>>>past week or was it just that scene?
>>
>>My mistake. I thought the next shot was of Claire.
>
> The scene you are referring to is where Claire is taking a shoe off one
> of the dead passengers. Jack told Claire in a previous scene that if
> she is to go with him to find the front part of the plane, she would
> need to change her shoes. As Claire starts to take a shoe off she looks
> up and sees Locke standing nearby. Locke smiles at her with the orange
> peel in his mouth. Then Claire stands as she picks up the shoes she
> removed from the dead passenger and walks away.
Oh this is rich!!! You two are so quick to jump down people's throats,
correct their mistakes, and insult their eyes, memories, and whatnot.
***KATE*** took the shoes off the corpse. KATE was going with Jack on
the cockpit trek. Pregnant Claire did no such thing. At least Ryan
admitted his mistake.
Steven L.
> Fred Ellis wrote:
>
>> Ryan Robbins wrote:
>>
>>> "Melroseman" <melro...@yahooNOSPAM.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>>> Oh, so Kate's pregnant??? Did you not see part 1 of the pilot until
>>>> this
>>>> past week or was it just that scene?
>>>
>>>
>>> My mistake. I thought the next shot was of Claire.
>>
>>
>> The scene you are referring to is where Claire is taking a shoe off one
>> of the dead passengers. Jack told Claire in a previous scene that if
>> she is to go with him to find the front part of the plane, she would
>> need to change her shoes. As Claire starts to take a shoe off she looks
>> up and sees Locke standing nearby. Locke smiles at her with the orange
>> peel in his mouth. Then Claire stands as she picks up the shoes she
>> removed from the dead passenger and walks away.
>
>
> Oh this is rich!!! You two are so quick to jump down people's throats,
> correct their mistakes, and insult their eyes, memories, and whatnot.
>
> ***KATE*** took the shoes off the corpse.
In fact, that scene is notable because one of the shoes Kate took had
"815" on it. Even though in that early episode we had no idea what the
significance of that was.
Melroseman
> Melroseman wrote:
>
>> ***KATE*** took the shoes off the corpse.
>
> In fact, that scene is notable because one of the shoes Kate took had
> "815" on it. Even though in that early episode we had no idea what the
> significance of that was.
I never even noticed it on my tv, still can't to this day. Is there a
screen cap showing it?
Fred Ellis
Pardon me, I stand corrected. So I typed in the wrong name. Let me go
back and repost that message with the correct name in it.
Fred Ellis
Attention everyone. I made a mistake in my previous post. Here is the
corrected version of that scene with the right name. Ryan, sorry I
posted that last message using the wrong name. It was Kate and not
Claire who got the shoes.
'The scene you are referring to is where Kate is taking a shoe off one
of the dead passengers. Jack told Kate in a previous scene that if
she is to go with him to find the front part of the plane, she would
need to change her shoes. As Kate starts to take a shoe off she looks
up and sees Locke standing nearby. Locke smiles at her with the orange
peel in his mouth. Then Kate stands as she picks up the shoes she
removed from the dead passenger and walks away.'
Now is everyone happy that I made my correction.
Tail Section
wrote:
The question is: Have you achieved atonement?
A Man, Just Like Other Men
news:Ysjoe.1764$W77....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> The issue is that what is plausible for the writers may not be so
> plausible for the more informed viewers.
>
> For example, the writers may think it's plausible that all those
> occurrences of Hurley's magic numbers could be dismissed as an improbable
> though not impossible coincidence. And many viewers may be content with
> that "explanation." The problem is that I've thought about the actual
> mathematical probabilities involved and I've decided the odds against the
> totality of magic number occurrences we've seen in Season One has now
> reached something like several quintillion to one. So while the writers
> might think that "coincidence" is an adequate explanation, I do not.
Odds of several quintillion to one doesn't stop people from believing in the
Theory of Evolution as the sole explanation of human existence.
Steven L.
I really don't want to get into a discussion of evolution here. Suffice
it to say that those who claim to have calculated astronomical odds
against it, didn't do the calculations properly. And that a time frame
of 5 billion years (the age of the earth) is long enough to allow all
kinds of highly improbable things to happen; whereas the lives of these
castaways are only roughly one one-hundred-millionth as long.
Hurley winning the lottery with those numbers would make more sense if
he had 5 billion years to keep buying lottery tickets.
Melroseman
> I really don't want to get into a discussion of evolution here. Suffice
> it to say that those who claim to have calculated astronomical odds
> against it, didn't do the calculations properly. And that a time frame
> of 5 billion years (the age of the earth) is long enough to allow all
> kinds of highly improbable things to happen; whereas the lives of these
> castaways are only roughly one one-hundred-millionth as long.
>
> Hurley winning the lottery with those numbers would make more sense if
> he had 5 billion years to keep buying lottery tickets.
Would it make more sense if we were shown or told that Hurley had been
playing those numbers every week for several years?
David Chapman
> Steven L. wrote:
>> Hurley winning the lottery with those numbers would make more sense if
>> he had 5 billion years to keep buying lottery tickets.
>
> Would it make more sense if we were shown or told that Hurley had been
> playing those numbers every week for several years?
Last week, a couple in the UK won the lottery not once but *four times* in a
day. They had multiple lines; they hit three numbers with one of them, four
with a second, a line came up in the Lotto Extra game, and then a lucky dip
won them the jackpot. The odds against this happening were so high that if
every human being on Earth bought the same number of lines as they did for
every UK lottery draw made in a year, you still wouldn't expect it to happen
again.
--
Who the f--k are you calling insolent?
xena_ali
My favorite post! Maybe you should take a minute before your next
smarmy smart-a** comment.
Steven L.
This is an example of how to misuse probability.
If you're going to look for improbable occurrences in gambling *anywhere
on earth*, involving anybody on earth, you are far more likely to find
them than if you focused on one place and one set of people from the
beginning.
There are now lotteries in most states in the U.S., and as you say in
the U.K., plus there are casinos worldwide and other gambling games.
The probability that you will find such an improbable occurrence as you
mentioned *somewhere on earth* is a lot higher than if you were looking
for such an improbable occurrence among the passengers of Flight 815 only.
David Chapman
> David Chapman wrote:
>> Last week, a couple in the UK won the lottery not once but *four times*
>> in a day. They had multiple lines; they hit three numbers with one of
>> them, four with a second, a line came up in the Lotto Extra game, and
>> then a lucky dip won them the jackpot. The odds against this happening
>> were so high that if every human being on Earth bought the same number
>> of lines as they did for every UK lottery draw made in a year, you still
>> wouldn't expect it to happen again.
>
> This is an example of how to misuse probability.
No, it isn't.
> The probability that you will find such an improbable occurrence as you
> mentioned *somewhere on earth* is a lot higher than if you were looking
> for such an improbable occurrence among the passengers of Flight 815 only.
Yes. However, given that most people don't enter lotteries the probability
of such an event happening somewhere on Earth is *still* lower than the
probability of Hurley winning.
J.T.
>> plausible for the more informed viewers.
>>
>> For example, the writers may think it's plausible that all those
>> occurrences of Hurley's magic numbers could be dismissed as an improbable
>> though not impossible coincidence. And many viewers may be content with
>> that "explanation." The problem is that I've thought about the actual
>> mathematical probabilities involved and I've decided the odds against the
>> totality of magic number occurrences we've seen in Season One has now
>> reached something like several quintillion to one. So while the writers
>> might think that "coincidence" is an adequate explanation, I do not.
>
>
> Odds of several quintillion to one doesn't stop people from believing in
> the Theory of Evolution as the sole explanation of human existence.
What would be the odds on human existence being explained by the various
stories of creative writers in the last couple thousand years? Or some odds
on our little rock floating around a little star in a little galaxy among
billions of others being significant enough to justify the creation of it
all?
I'm sorry, I just can't resist going after ignorant jackasses who like to
dismiss mountains of good science in favor of a leap of faith. Refuting
evolution is like seeing that every time you throwing a ball up in the air,
it comes back down. But hey, I *believe* that the next time I throw it up
there, God will intervene and it won't come back down.
It's people like that who want to raise a generation of children on
horrendously ignorant misconceptions about the nature of science. Evolution
is not just a theory. Plain and simple. Why is there evolution? Who
knows. But evolution happens - you can watch it happen in much less than
the span of a human lifetime if you put down your bible long enough to do
some productive investigation and stop listening to the same pissant
knowitalls who devised the crazy relgions we're all stuck with today.
Steven L.
>>>The issue is that what is plausible for the writers may not be so
>>>plausible for the more informed viewers.
>>>
>>>For example, the writers may think it's plausible that all those
>>>occurrences of Hurley's magic numbers could be dismissed as an improbable
>>>though not impossible coincidence. And many viewers may be content with
>>>that "explanation." The problem is that I've thought about the actual
>>>mathematical probabilities involved and I've decided the odds against the
>>>totality of magic number occurrences we've seen in Season One has now
>>>reached something like several quintillion to one. So while the writers
>>>might think that "coincidence" is an adequate explanation, I do not.
>>
>>
>>Odds of several quintillion to one doesn't stop people from believing in
>>the Theory of Evolution as the sole explanation of human existence.
>
>
>
> What would be the odds on human existence being explained by the various
> stories of creative writers in the last couple thousand years? Or some odds
> on our little rock floating around a little star in a little galaxy among
> billions of others being significant enough to justify the creation of it
> all?
Your flaming on this issue didn't address his specific point, which is
the claimed improbability that our DNA code (3 billion "letters" long)
could have produced human beings by random chance.
The real answer, of course, is that our DNA code was not produced by
random trials in which all outcomes are equally probable. It has its
own rules that vastly constrains the possibilities. Those rules are
based on the laws of organic chemistry that determine which atoms and
molecules can fit together and in what ways.
Just as the "artificial life" games you can run on your PC (like the
original "Game of Life") were able to generate patterns, starting from a
few well-defined rules.
> It's people like that who want to raise a generation of children on
> horrendously ignorant misconceptions about the nature of science. Evolution
> is not just a theory. Plain and simple. Why is there evolution? Who
> knows. But evolution happens - you can watch it happen in much less than
> the span of a human lifetime if you put down your bible long enough to do
> some productive investigation and stop listening to the same pissant
> knowitalls who devised the crazy relgions we're all stuck with today.
Believe me, you're not helping the cause of science when you denounce
all religion as "crazy." If you're going to force people to choose
between science and religion (a choice that should NEVER have to be
made), they may end up choosing religion.
Science in no way depends on atheism.
J.T.
I wasn't trying to start a flame war here; it was frustration. Generally,
I'm pretty even-keeled and open-minded about things. I'm an atheist (mostly
because of the serious shortcomings of every worldly religion I've
encountered), but I respect spirituality and certainly do not completely
dismiss any answers to the big "why" questions in life.
I do get fired up at the notion that creationists can label evolution a
"theory," with the implication that it's just an educated guess, on equal
footing with archaic mythology. When it comes to centuries of science going
up against what some priest-scribe wrote down a few millenia ago to explain
to his followers where the world came from . . . well to me it's not even
worthy of debate.
The amount of ignorance regarding evolution: what it is, what it means, and
how it happens, is really frustrating. Especially considering the amount of
discussion on the topic. In no way should evolution be mentioned in the
same breath with creationism - one is based on a process of seeking to
explain the world, the other is based on trying to make the world fit a
pre-existing explanation.
>> It's people like that who want to raise a generation of children on
>> horrendously ignorant misconceptions about the nature of science.
>> Evolution is not just a theory. Plain and simple. Why is there
>> evolution? Who knows. But evolution happens - you can watch it happen
>> in much less than the span of a human lifetime if you put down your bible
>> long enough to do some productive investigation and stop listening to the
>> same pissant knowitalls who devised the crazy relgions we're all stuck
>> with today.
>
> Believe me, you're not helping the cause of science when you denounce all
> religion as "crazy." If you're going to force people to choose between
> science and religion (a choice that should NEVER have to be made), they
> may end up choosing religion.
>
> Science in no way depends on atheism.
The spirit in which that last point was made comes off as far angrier than
it was. I'm against notions of 'absolute' in general. Science depends on
science. It answers questions like what, how, where, etc. but does not
address the question of 'why?' Religion depends on faith, which means just
about anything can be put forth and accepted as a matter of faith. Anyone
can think up whatever he or she wants to explain anything, and if enough
people buy into it, BANG you've got religion. I *believe* 100% that all
religions are constructs of human intellect trying to explain itself.
That being said, I don't think anyone can know why the universe exists, why
there's gravity, baryons, photons, etc., so any explanation is equally as
valid as any other. As far as the other questions, what, when, how -
science rests on a whole lot more than an arbitrary explanation that helps
people sleep at night.
Anyway, you're right that this is hardly the forum for such a discussion.
It's causality - I see an ignorant statement about evolution, I go off like
a volcano. It's like a fly touching a hair in a Venus fly trap.
Palpie
>
>
> Johnn...@webtv.net wrote:
>
> > redbi...@verizon.net (Ryan Robbins) wrote:
> >
> >>Who said anything about tying everything
> >>together with one explanation?
> >
> > OK... Explain everything separately then --and without resorting to the
> > ridiculous, such as winches, ropes, and pulleys that have the ability to
> > come alive, and do the impossible. ...Or to passing off the numbers that
> > by a gazillion to one odds, can coincidentally appear at every turn in
> > peoples lives..... Or the ability for "fragile" humans to survive a jet
> > crash, when the metal plane body itself is twisted around like a
> > pretzel. ...Or black smoke that implies a sentient entity, and can
> > disappear instantly in mid-air like it was sucked into a miniature black
> > hole. ...Or how a ship can end up inland like Dorothy's house, and yet
> > still (relatively speaking) be in one piece. Or.... Or... Or...
>
> If you search the Google archive of this NG, you will find reasonable
> theories offered to explain *all* of the mysteries you have listed
> here--except one:
>
> The repeated occurrences of Hurley's magic numbers, the odds against
> which have now reached quintillions to one. There are theories about
> what the numbers might mean; but I have seen no theories on why they
> keep showing up so often around the world.
>
> The only explanation I have thought of, is an "Invasion Of The Body
> Snatchers" scenario: The officials who run the lottery in Hurley's home
> state, the hotel room clerk who assigned Hurley room 2342, the Oceanic
> gate 23, and even the six soccer girls at the airport wearing Hurley's
> numbers, aren't humans. They're creatures who grew out of seed pods,
> and the numbers 23, 42, 815 are important to that species.
I think almost all of those instances are meaningless in the big picture.
Hurley was in room 2342 because 23 and 42 are 2 of the numbers and Abrams
and co like messing with the audience. Same with every clock seeming to
show one or more of the numbers. I really don't think there is any
significance to Walt waking Michael up at 5:23. It's just there for viewers
to notice. The only significant numbers occurances to me are Hurley using
them in the lottery, Sam using them in the bean counting, the numbers being
transmitted and on the hatch, and maybe the flight being 815. Most other
instances seem to be cases where they needed some number in the script or to
be shown and so threw them in just cause.
> But since Abrams/Lindelof have said there are no aliens in Lost, my
> theory can't be right. So on that one, we may be forced to just call
> the magic numbers fate or karma or destiny--or God.
Or they aren't magic and the curse is just in Sam and Hurley's minds. And
the other stuff is just artistic licence :)