The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > The Monkey Shakespeare Simulator

The Monkey Shakespeare Simulator

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 16
  10. 17
  11. 18
  12. All
Hello Runner,

I have replied to your post on the other thread. Please return.

Oly.
Posted by Oliver, Tuesday, 18 November 2008 2:02:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Personally, I think the fact that Porky sits at his computer typing out seemingly infinite permutations of gibberish - some of which vaguely resemble English prose - rather supports the Monkey/Shakespeare hypothesis.

If he keeps it up he may even post something eventually that is simultaneously rational, truthful and expressed in correct English.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Tuesday, 18 November 2008 2:07:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What sort of monkeys are we talking about here? Are we talking the more advanced primates like chimpanzees or are we talking colobus monkeys?

Apes are pretty much like people really. It took one Shakespeare to write Hamlet but I wonder how many lesser men it would take to do it? Or women?
Posted by chainsmoker, Tuesday, 18 November 2008 3:04:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yeah but, Chainsmoker, it didn't take just one man to write Hamlet if we get right down to it, did it?

First there was the traditional story which originated in Europe - one version of which somehow got translated into English and crossed the channel. Then there was the story that was passed around and turned into the original play - of which there were as many different versions as there were companies to perform it. Then there was the version Shakespeare just happened to know and to choose upon which to base his play. There were also the collaboraters - e.g. other members of the company - who put in their ten cents worth. Then there was the play as written and the play as performed. And finally the different versions of Shakespeare's which were published. Only one of which was be to replicated by monkeys.

So, into this equation we must also take cognisance of the fact that the play "Shakespeare's Hamlet" also went through a long period of evolution, including many variables and chance occurrances before that particular version appeared.

Maybe the monkeys have been typing the original version, in Danish, all along and no-one ever realised?
Posted by Romany, Tuesday, 18 November 2008 3:33:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Romany take your thought further...Shakespeare STOLE Hamlet from those poor monkeys! Little things had been wearing their digits to the bone creating a Danish masterpiece - of course inventing the typewriter along the way and along comes Shakespeare and translates it and makes a fortune. What a charlatan that Shakespeare; but he did come home with the Bacon. Is it any wonder that they stopped typing drama and switched to advertising?
By the way I understand they were capuchin monkeys on account of their fondness for a certain type of coffee.
Posted by BAYGON, Tuesday, 18 November 2008 3:46:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Polyboaz,

As Yabby suggested, you should learn a thing or two before you continue to make such a fool of yourself.

<<We often discuss such things as evolution and creation, but I doubt that many pro evolutionists
examine closely the actual probabilities of intelligent life spontaneously forming by chance.>>

Who are these people you’re talking about?

I don’t know anyone who claims that life “spontaneously” appeared by chance. Misrepresenting the views of others is dishonest and a clear breach of the 9th commandment.

<<Please note.. I'm not laughing at those who believe such rubbish..but at the rubbish itself.>>

Yes, what you are laughing at certainly is rubbish. Maybe you should tell other Creationists that too?

<<Those who believe it.. well I'm sure they are sincere...but uninformed......until now :)>>

Uninformed until now?

Sorry, Polyboaz, but most people know about that argument, and the fact that it has been debunked over and over and over.

<< Like I said..belief in spontaneous origin of life by chance is not science..but religion.>>

I suggest you look-up the definition of "religion".

There are credible (albeit incomplete) explanations about how the first complex cells arrived. Just because we can’t yet explain it entirely, that doesn’t mean that a magical being must’ve done it.

Interesting though, that to denigrate science, Creationists need to call it a religion - the very thing they practice.

Creationist arguments are naive at best, and dishonest at worst. But It seems that lying is alright, if you’re doing it for God.

Boaz, if Creationism is true, then why do Creationists have to stoop to the level of selectively quoting people out-of-context to help their case?
Posted by AJ Philips, Tuesday, 18 November 2008 4:24:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 16
  10. 17
  11. 18
  12. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy