Re: By Design (was Re: Numbers)

From: Vernon Jenkins (vernon.jenkins@virgin.net)
Date: Thu Mar 06 2003 - 18:37:04 EST

  • Next message: Glenn Morton: "tight supply of oil"

    John,

    I take you point, of course. But what I think has first to be established,
    and generally agreed upon, is the vanishingly small probability that these
    phenomena may be attributed to chance. Clearly, to be fully convinced of
    this one has to spend some time digesting the complete body of evidence set
    out at http://www.otherbiblecode.com. However, for the benefit of those who
    find they haven't the time to embark on such an exercise it is my intention
    to present, over the next day or so, a summary of the salient features.

    I have to say I am most surprised that you can already have assessed this
    evidence as 'too weak to consider seriously...'. Are you really that
    unimpressed by the '10 billion to1 against' scenario associated with the 'pi
    / e' affair?

    Vernon

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "John Burgeson" <burgythree@hotmail.com>
    To: <vernon.jenkins@virgin.net>; <asa@calvin.edu>
    Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 5:11 PM
    Subject: Re: By Design (was Re: Numbers)

    > Vernon wrote: "these facts (augmented by the many other phenomena
    described
    > in the pages of http://www.otherbiblecode.com) constitute proof that
    certain
    > key parts of the biblical text - as found in current copies of the Hebrew
    > and Greek originals - are intelligently designed... ."
    >
    > I would tentatively accept the statement above if you altered it to read:
    > "these facts (augmented by the many other phenomena described in the pages
    > of http://www.otherbiblecode.com) constitute EVIDENCE FOR THE CLAIM that
    > certain key parts of the biblical text - as found in current copies of the
    > Hebrew and Greek originals - are intelligently designed BY A SUPERNATURAL
    > BEING NOT A HUMAN ... ."
    >
    > Do you see the difference in your statement and my change to it? It is, I
    > think, a key difference.
    >
    > That being said, the question then becomes how strong the evidence is,
    and,
    > if the claim is true, what difference does it make.
    >
    > To reiterate my own position on this, I see the evidence for the claim as
    > too weak to consider seriously, and that, even if true, it does not make
    any
    > real difference to anything that matters.
    >
    > Burgy
    >
    > www.burgy.50megs.com
    >
    >
    > _________________________________________________________________
    > MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.
    > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
    >

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Mar 06 2003 - 18:37:23 EST