Re: Daniel's 70 `weeks' (was How to prove supernaturalism?)

From: AutismUK@aol.com
Date: Mon Nov 13 2000 - 16:30:03 EST

  • Next message: Richard Wein: "Re: Daniel's 70 `weeks' (was How to prove supernaturalism?)"

    In a message dated 13/11/00 18:22:22 GMT Standard Time, billwald@juno.com
    writes:

    << This is a gross mis-use of probability. It is meaningless to talk about
     the probability of historical events. If an event occurs then all you
     can say is that it happened so the "probability" was 100%. I would like
     to hear from a real mathematician about this.
     
     Also, it is impossible to produce data. For example, what were the odds
     that a Jewish trouble maker would be crucified by the Romans? Lots higher
     than for being hit by a bus (chariot). The Romans crucified tens of
     thousands over the years. >>

    This is a popular calculation. Not only are the numbers totally
    unquantifiable ; if it is like the EDTAV version it excludes
    consequential events (e.g. in the genealogy lists ; I bet at least
    100 of those are from there !) and it assumes that all "prophecy"
    is reached by the same method.



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Nov 13 2000 - 16:30:19 EST