By not providing us with calculations of the actual 'probabilities' ? Remember that you have to 1) show that the numbers are 'out of the ordinary' 2) that they were not planted there by the writers.
You did not present evidence that you had established 'a priori' what would be considered 'miraculous' numbers. On the contrary, from what I understand you appear to have performed the opposite.
Vernon: <<Taken at face-value, these are the received words of a sovereign God for
whom nothing is impossible; a God more than capable of creating all
things ex nihilo in six literal days some six thousand years ago. >>
And cover up all the evidence for it ? If God were so interested in his message getting out, why provide us with data that show the opposite ?
Vernon: <<Many of our scientists and intellectuals have preferred
an explanation of origins that requires neither the involvement of God
nor any appeal to the miraculous. >>
Imagine that, scientists being scientists. Shame on them for doing their job.
Vernon " <<Though still officially designated 'theory', there is little doubt that the concept of evolution has itself evolved into hard fact as far as the establishment and the media are
concerned. Indeed, it has become an essential peg supporting a host of
other theories and speculations.>>
First of all 'evolution is enjoying such a statust due to the overwhelming evidence', secondly what other theories and speculations are you talking about ?
Vernon:
<<(3) it would need to be decisive, i.e. leave no room for doubt that the
Creator is its Author. >>
Too bad that you failed to prove this in this case. Using your arguments, the conclusion appears inescapable.
Vernon: <<But how can the words of an ancient language lead uniquely to a meaningful
set of numbers?>>
You tell us. How many languages and books can show this feat ? We have already seen some pretty remarkable messages in Moby Dick for instance.
James had asked:
> How do you objectively justify your methodology for (a) determining >these divinely intended geometries (i.e. how did God inform you that >they were to be found in this way?) and (b) interpreting the >significance of the geometries?
>
>On what basis do you conclude (a) that they were incorporated by the >Creator and (b) that He intended them to serve some serious purpose?
Vernon: MMJames, what you have not acknowledged (and it is no fault of yours for
as it stands my website makes little of them) are the symbolic aspects
of these geometries, and I believe the answers to many of your questions
lie here. >>
Symbolic aspects ? Are you sure that these 'symbols' were not read into them after you 'discovered them ?
Vernon: <<Here, then, is clear justification for my claim that numerical geometry
(triangularity in particular), and the reading of Hebrew and Greek words
as numbers, are God-given principles of Scriptural exegesis. >>
Why ? there appears to be nothing special about triangularity.
VernonL <<Now, regarding 'the message' conveyed by these findings. Many people are
atheists, while many who consider themselves theists are unwilling to
accept the plain language of the Scriptures and the fact of His overall
control of world events. >>
And some are mislead Christians who believe to be able to read far more into the messages than what God actually placed there.
Vernon: <<Finally, concerning Muslim claims in respect of the Koran. The Koran
contains no phenomena of the type and quality addressed here. >>
An unsupported assertion.
All I see is someone of little faith looking for evidence that God could not have 'created' using the mechanisms of evolution when faced with overwhelming evidence that evolution did happen. But even if you are right about your interpretation, what does it show ?
Perhaps you can provide us with some numbers detailing the probabilities involved in your 'discoveries' ?