Here’s a useful formula devised by Jessa to evaluate creationist hate mail, called the Creationist Rant Absurdity Phenomenon Index:
CRAP Index = M + 10(µ + Ω + I) + 10(F + σ + ρ) + (H)(1.0 x 106)
Where:
M = number of words in all capitals
µ = number of misspelled words
Ω = number of superfluous quotes around words or phrases
I = number of exclamation points
F = number of factually incorrect statements
σ = number of times the words “Darwinist,” “evolutionist,” etc. are used (double points for “evilutionist”)
ρ = number of insults
H = number of statements that the recipient is going to/will burn in/will rot in Hell
Somebody needs to code up a mail plug-in that will automatically score incoming mail for me…although I fear that F, σ, and ρ are probably difficult for software to recognize at this point. I also think there ought to be extra points for sequential exclamation points. Maybe we need a simplified index that is machine-calcuable.
Hmm. This has crap index directly proportional with length of the email. I suppose if it’s hate mail, that is quite correct.
I suggest another email plug-in, focused not on rating, but on translating; some of those fundy rants are nearly indecipherable. It would be nice to have something that does the brainwork for you. Something like a “Fundamentalist Universal Cipher, Keeping The Animosity Readable” Device… but I don’t know what you’d call it for short.
I just take it on faith that an email from a creationist is going to be full of crap. I don’t need no steenking evidence!
σ is easy to compute: it would need just a simple string search. F and P would be more difficult, but if you can find a pattern in the insults (___ are a ____ and because you ____ you will go to ____), those can be sorted out too. Factual statements can be easier to filter out because you would just have to search for terms such as thermodynamics that are guaranteed to be miss-used.
YU CRAZY EVILUTIONISTS!!! HOW CAN YOU PREECH YOUR “SCIENCE” AND “TRUTH” WHEN THE REEL TRUTH IS STAIRING YOU IN YOUR UGLY DARINIST FACES!!!!!!!!! YOUR “SO-CALLED” “E-MAIL MATH”!!!!! IS GONNA MAKE BABY SQUIDS “CRY”!!!!1!!!!!!! OMGBBQ!!! THERE IS NO PROOF FOUR YOUR STUPID “SCIENCE” AND YETT YOU STILL INSINST ON SENDING LITTLE CHILDREN TO HELL FOR YOUR FUN AND PROFIT! YOU DON’T EVEN KNOW “GOOD BIOLLOGY”, WHICH IS BASED ON THE BIBLE AND NOT ON YOUR DUM “EVIDENCE”!!!!! REPENT NOW FOR THE KINGDOM OF HELL IS WAITING UNTO YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!
NOTDARWONISTSTEVE!!!:
Yeah, that’s pretty much the kind of stuff I’ve been getting. Well, except for the squid part.
He missed a key expression …
… +(V/L)
where V is the number of bible references divided by L, the number of lines in the message.
Try this. Copy the text. Use babelfish (or some other translation software) and convert it another language. Then translate that result to yet another language and then back to English. It won’t make it make any more sense, but it can be amusing:
“YU EVILUTIONISTS FOL! ! ! LIKE IT CAR PREECH ITS “SCIENCE” AND “TRUTH”, IF THE COIL TRUTH IS STAIRING IT IN YOUR UGLY ONE!!!!!!!!! _ OF DARINIST FACE IT “”!!!!! “APPARENT” OF E-MAIL-MATHE!!!!!!! FROM CRY”!!!!1 FAIR ONE of the KALMARBABYS GOES the” OMGBBQ! ! ! IT A there NO PROOF FOUR YOUR “STUPID SCIENCE” AND IT ALWAYS INSINST ON SMALL CHILDREN at HELL FOR YOUR PLEASURE AND PROFIT TO SENDING! IT KNOWLEDGE “EVEN PROPERTY BIOLLOGY”, THE ON OF THE BIBLE IS NOT BASED AND NOT “!!!!! Of “REPENTING you OBVIOUSNESS IT, which MAINTAINS FOR the KINGDOM of HELL, EXPECTING at THEM ON YOUR DUM!!!!!!!!!!!!”
It still makes no sense, but it is a little more amusing.
Not to quibble, but it looks like that third term is going to wipe out any significant contribution by the first two.
Actually, σ is very easy to detect algorithmically. Much like the sequential exclamation points. The only “tough” ones are the insults (you can’t just look for specific words, as they can be used in other ways) and, of course, factually incorrect statements.
Actually, σ is very easy to detect algorithmically. Much like the sequential exclamation points. The only “tough” ones are the insults (you can’t just look for specific words, as they can be used in other ways) and, of course, factually incorrect statements.
A few more suggestions…
Points for the appearance of certain well-trod phrases that reveal ignorance/indifference/hostility to the actual practice of science: “secular science”, for example.
And (I can’t believe no one has mentioned this yet) points for every reference to unsavory historical characters allegedly influenced by or influencing Darwin, with a special million-point multiplier on any sentence in which Darwin and Hitler both appear.
And what is the factor of a million doing at the end?
And what is the factor of a million doing at the end?
Because it really annoys me when they throw Hell at me.
I’d like to see this implemented. What is the range of the formula, zero to 1,000 where ‘0’ is safe and 1,000 is Kool-Aid drinking? Also, what will be the measure in ‘units’?
Why not just something simple like;
2xDarwinism + 5! = Automatic offensive reply?
Has anyone ever received an e-mail with more than three exclamation marks in it?
(I started losing my mathematic powers when I was introduced to + and – in the same equation, nevermind imaginary numbers and the joy of Boolean algebra.)
NOT NOT NAND NOR AND NOT NAND OR AND NOT ;)
Let’s try it out.
You continue to edit out my posts on your stupid-ass forum. You (and you at least intuitively know this) are on the proverbial “sinking ship”. You are either naiive or stupid, or even both, if you are honestly proclaiming that the darwinistic philosophical VASTLY, INCREDIBLY UNSUSTANTIATED (with REAL scientific data) proclomations have any kind of even fucking micro minute (to the hundreds of power) significant explanitory ability in explaining how the living ecosystems we (GOD DAMN IT , THE VIRTUALLY UNEXPLAINED WE!!!!!!!!!! YOU BELLIGERANT FUCK-HEAD) can observe at this point in (by the way, where the fuck did ‘TIME” COME FROM YOU ARROGANT FUCKING JACKASS”) time. (you pencil dick shithead). I know you and your sympathizers are ON THE GOD DAMNED ROPES and are being fucking (proverbally) punched all over the ring. Just listen to anything Richard (the god of the macro-evolutionary paradign) has to say in public anymore. He has to rely on a bunch of fucking irrelevant non-scientific rhetoric in order to even stay in any kind of legitimate scientifically relevant discussion on the matter. After all he has on his side the momentum of the philosophical assertions that have been force fed and rammed down the publics throats for so many years that I am sure he must be trying, just like you, you dickhead, to profit off of that “momentum” of this RAPIDLY dissolving conglomeration of unsubstatianted claims (based on presuppositional preferences of it’s major constituancies. (you stupid ass) ) before it becomes apparent to (the ignorant) masses that they have been duped by your pathetic ilk. Look, I understand you desire to profit off of something you are passionate about and is consistent with your day to day activities. But when you insist on (for whatever reasons) perpetuating the VASTLY UNSUBSTANTIATED BULLSHIT regarding “chemicals to ecosystems” then, my friend, you have stepped into an infinitely vast pile of shit you can not even remotely pull out of. you dumb fuck.
CRAP Index = 29 + 10(7 + 3 + 1) + 10(11 + 1 + 7) + (0)(1.0 x 106) = 329
Awesome! It works!
I’m still trying to understand the equation:
father + guilt = sweaters
I think we should have a more sophisticated system for identification of creationist rants.
I propose a 3-dimenional vector. The x-axis will be for dishonesty. The y-axis will be for ignorance. The z-axis will be for general lunacy.
Of course, it would be hard to differentiate between someone who is playing dumb to hide the truth and someone who is genuinely stupid.
Just out of curiosity… how would one go about sending little children to hell for fun and profit? It sounds fun. And profitable.
Not that I would. Of course not. *whistles innocently*
BTW, Jessa, thanks a lot for finding the YouTube video on the origin of cdesign proponentsists.
BTW, Jessa, thanks a lot for finding the YouTube video on the origin of cdesign proponentsists.
No. It is 29 + 10*(7 + 3 + 1) + 1011 + 1 + 7 + 0*1,000,000 = 139 + 1019 = 10,000,000,000,000,000,139. Ten quintillions, in other words.
No. It is 29 + 10*(7 + 3 + 1) + 1011 + 1 + 7 + 0*1,000,000 = 139 + 1019 = 10,000,000,000,000,000,139. Ten quintillions, in other words.
NOTDARWONISTSTEVE!!!, you stole my idea. :(
More relevant to blog comments than email, I suppose, but how about an additional index based on the number of times a creotroll promises to go away, but doesn’t?
And shouldn’t the dependence on the number of exclamation points be a recursive factorial of some kind?
Okay, so it could use a bit of tweaking. This all really came about because of insomnia + a new equation program. I think I really meant to have the third (exponential) term be a simple factor like the second term, but I’ve always had a thing for exponents.
Such is the fun of the sleep-deprived geek.
No. It is 29 + 10*(7 + 3 + 1) + 1011 + 1 + 7 + 0*1,000,000 = 139 + 1019 = 10,000,000,000,000,000,139. Ten quintillions, in other words.
That will teach me to copy-and-paste a formula.
CRAP!
Missing variables: number of references to scripture and “teaching the controversy”.
Try making the exponential to the power of 2. And I would multiply it by the rest of the terms. That way you have two sections, one about banality and one about anti-evolution, and the two multiply together. So something like this:
CRAP Index = ( M + 10(µ + Ω + n) + 2^ρ + 4^n + (H)(1.0 x 106) +v )*2^(F + σ + q)*(1/(L/s)*2^(L/s))
Where n is the number of references to Hitler, Nazi’s, Stalin, Communism, Lysenkoism, and Eugenics (summed), q is the number of quote-mines, L is the length of the email, and s is a scaling factor. That way the email gets a really high score for very short emails packed with crap, goes down for normal-length emails (“normal” being determined by s), and then goes back up if the post gets really long.
That formula is obviously, nay, fatally flawed:
The whole damn thing needs to be multiplied exponentially, to the power of CS. How can you forget the most important variable?
What would you get if you applied the CRAP factor to the bible?
One of my favorite key CRAP indicators seems to be missing. The word “Neo”. As in “Neo-Darwinist” or “Neo-Atheism”.
Shoot, using the word “Neo” alone you’d get a number in the hundreds from Wells’ “Icons of Evolution”.
That would be bad. It would be like crossing the streams of your particle throwers from two proton packs. Every molecule in your brain would explode at the speed of light.
Or at least it would feel that way while wading through the whole bible to apply a formula to it.
GREAT IDEA!!!! SOMEONE SHOULD WRITE THAT MAIL “FILTER” RIGHT AWAY!!
-jcr
I get the impression that you don’t like the term “evolutionist”. Is there an alternative one word term that describes someone who believes in evolution? Scientist or Biologist is insufficient, as some of them don’t believe.
Computers would be able to recognize words like “Darwinist”, because they can, thankfully, recognize words like “vi@6Ra” and “h0+ st0x.”
I’m no programmer, but do any of you programmers out there know if F and ρ can be calculated?
You could set up a form letter to autoreply with their score and percentile.
Or, rather than using Babelfish, you could put it into the English-to-12-Year-Old-AOLer Translator before posting. It would be especially nifty with the Comic Sans.
Before
After:
Hm. Actually, there isn’t much difference, is there?
I propose the “Nixon Adjustment” to the formula: multiply by a factor of e when the phrase “believe in evolution” occurs in the message.
BUT WHAT IF I POST A MISPELED RANT AGAINST!!! CREATIONISTS IN WHICH I ASK “”WHAT!!!”” THEY’RE DOING POSTING INSULTING RANTS CALLING DARWINISTS / EVOLUTIONISTS “FOOLS” AND THREATENING HELL FIRE WHEN THEIR OWN BOOK’S MATTHEW 5:22 SAYS “THAT WHOSOEVER IS ANGRY WITH HIS BROTHER WITHOUT A CAUSE SHALL BE IN DANGER OF THE JUDGMENT: AND WHOSOEVER SHALL SAY TO HIS BROTHER, RACA, SHALL BE IN DANGER OF THE COUNCIL: BUT WHOSOEVER SHALL SAY, THOU FOOL, SHALL BE IN DANGER OF HELL FIRE.” ???!!!???
Since that wouldn’t be a Creationist rant at all, why would it get such a high “Creationist Rant Absurdity Phenomenon” rating? (!!!)
I don’t “believe in” evolution…I accept that there is sufficient evidence to take common descent as a fact.
With some additions, the mechanisms described by the neo-Darwinian synthesis make a well supported theory.
No “belief” or “faith” involved.
What working biologists (producing papers in peer reviewed journals) don’t accept common descent?
Anyway, a good word is REALIST. As opposed to god-smacked, delusion nit-wit.
I don’t “believe in” evolution…I accept that there is sufficient evidence to take common descent as a fact.
With some additions, the mechanisms described by the neo-Darwinian synthesis make a well supported theory.
No “belief” or “faith” involved.
What working biologists (producing papers in peer reviewed journals) don’t accept common descent?
Anyway, a good word is REALIST. As opposed to god-smacked, delusion nit-wit.
Ross Nixon @ 33:
The problem is the implication that evolution is an article of faith, something one is supposed to “believe in”, rather than:
One also needn’t “believe in the theory of gravity” — which also has undergone refinement over time, and may continue to do so as new discoveries are made.
Scientists aren’t “gravityists” any more than they’re “evolutionists”; they follow the evidence wherever it leads.
That’s different from Creationism, which disregards evidence in order to believe in Creation as an article of faith — which is why it’s coming from churches and their devout believers, not from labs or paleontology digs.
Indeed not, because it makes us look like followers of an ideology.
None of them believes, as explained above.
Maybe the Book of Mormon says it best:
Indeed not, because it makes us look like followers of an ideology.
None of them believes, as explained above.
Maybe the Book of Mormon says it best:
MartinDH, Georgia Purdom is one such biologist. (Other Creationists with science degrees are her peers).
Pyre, thanks for confirming that major (non-observable) aspects of evolution are held by faith. And Creationism does not disregard evidence, it interprets it; the same as evolutionists do.
This is awesome. Just how do I derive a scaling factor?
This is awesome. Just how do I derive a scaling factor?
Nope, “macroevolution” is a linear extrapolation from “microevolution” mandated by the principle of parsimony, which is one of the two pillars of science.
The other is falsifiability. Go ahead, find me a Silurian rabbit, and watch the theory of evolution throw convulsions.
Sure it does — it just doesn’t necessarily knowingly disregard evidence. Show me a creationist who actually knows all the evidence that is known, or even just all the evidence that I happen to know! I haven’t found any so far.
Nope, “macroevolution” is a linear extrapolation from “microevolution” mandated by the principle of parsimony, which is one of the two pillars of science.
The other is falsifiability. Go ahead, find me a Silurian rabbit, and watch the theory of evolution throw convulsions.
Sure it does — it just doesn’t necessarily knowingly disregard evidence. Show me a creationist who actually knows all the evidence that is known, or even just all the evidence that I happen to know! I haven’t found any so far.
Ah, Dr. Georgia Purdom.
The Fall, the Flood, the Fool.
Ross Nixon’s CRAP score for #42 is 10,000.
Billy:
Try this. Copy the text. Use babelfish (or some other translation software) and convert it another language. Then translate that result to yet another language and then back to English. It won’t make it make any more sense, but it can be amusing.
Genius! I did this to the clip from CalGeorge’s Post #16.
This is what came out (English-Dutch-French-English):
“Fuck-hoofed belligerant.” Heh. It’s more fun than disemvowelling.
Simple. Replace the factor “number of exclamation marks” with “ratio of exclamation marks/sentences”.
Long ago, after reading a number of extreme conspiracy notion publications, I decided to reject any publication that was filled with CAPITALIZED WORDS!!!
I guess I would prefer if it came to a simple 0 to 1.0 ratio while 0 (0%) represents a valid argument and 1.0 represents 100% CRAP!
Very evocative, but the scaling needs adjustment, as others have said.
Terry Pratchett has said (Maskerade) that it takes five consecutive !!!!!s to take the writer beyond the sanity event horizon.
BTW, what’s with the !!!s having occasional 11s mixed in? Don’t you just hold down the caps key, hit ! and go for coffee?
Also, why do you suppose it is that logos and grammaros seem to go together? Does mastery of spelling, grammar and punctuation somehow make people more thoughtful and temperate, or what?
Noni
Now we need one for Deepak Chopra and the New Age/Vitalist/ Transpersonal/ Spiritual crowd. And if there’s a translation feature perhaps James Randi could use it to figure out some of the applications which come into the JREF for the $1 million challenge.
You can get a good first-order approximation to F by counting the number of punctuation marks. The main source of error will be incorrect use of punctuation.
Unfortunately the program for such a filter would be rather long. The list of words and phrases to watch for is quite long. particularly so given the disproportionate amount of misspellings in most cdesign proponentsists rants. Not to mention the punctuation errors. Sometime when I have a week or so with nothing to do maybe I’ll have a look at it.
This calls for an evolutionary algorithm.
Sastra, let’s get on it. I was recently in a debate with one of these guys on Youtube, but had to stop before more of my brain cells killed themselves. The comments (which have every thing except ALL CAPS TYPING WITH EXCLAMATION POINTS!!!!!!!!11!!!!!1!!!!1!!!!!) are classic.
This presumes that there’s an upper limit to crap.
But there isn’t.
This presumes that there’s an upper limit to crap.
But there isn’t.
I’ve seen this before, and I am not sure it is entirely correct as a “falsification” of evolution.
Given how well evolution is supported, would one anomalous fossil really be sufficient to disprove it?
Every theory that has been advanced is an explanation for given natural phenomena. Each new explanation has to be shown to explain natural phenomena better than the previous explanation, in that it explains the previous phenomena as well, in addition to phenomena which are not explained by the previous theory.
General relativity is a better explanation than special relativity, which is a better explanation than Newtonian gravity. Germ theory is a better explanation than demon infestation or imbalance of humours.
What theory would explain all observations of evolution that have been made, and would also include an explanation for a rabbit fossil being dated to the Silurian era? Would it necessarily be that evolution is entirely false? Would it necessarily be creationism?
I’m not entirely sure of the answer myself, but I think it’s a question that requires a bit more thought and reasoning. I do think that error, deception, geophysical anomalies, and time travel, are all better explanations than the alleged actions of an otherwise untestable god. But I would be interested in seeing if there might be other, better arguments.