Re: Small probabilities

Vernon,

    With all due respect to Iain, this is a point with which I disagree.
Per our previous discussion, the only argument offered against coincidence
is very low probability, which I argued is, in general, insufficient to
prove that something is other than random or a coincidence. It can be a
good "search warrant" or cause to search for other explanations but, lacking
such evidence, coincidence is by no means ruled out. I have the same
concerns with Dembski's 10^-150 argument and his specified complexity.

    I do agree with you that the ASA is, and should be, a forum where "we
continue to exercise that reason in prayerful consideration."

    Randy

----- Original Message -----
From: "Vernon Jenkins" <vernon.jenkins@virgin.net>
To: "Randy Isaac" <randyisaac@adelphia.net>
Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2006 5:40 PM
Subject: Re: Small probabilities

> Randy,
>
> It is a simple principle of numerical geometry that a symmetrical
> hexagon/hexagram pair may be generated by the self-intersection/union of a
> triangle possessing a single centroid counter. The triangular forms of
> 2701 (sum of the 7 Hebrew words of Genesis 1:1) and 703 (sum of the final
> two words of the same verse which, incidentally, fits precisely into
> 2701-as-triangle, thereby generating a trio of 666-as-triangle) have this
> capability. It now transpires that the pair 469/937, generated by
> 703-as-triangle, may be derived from simple combinations of words within
> the verse. These facts are demonstrated in a recently added Addendum to
> the page "Creation Geometries - Part 1" which may be found at
> http://homepage.virgin.net/tgvernon.jenkins/Astounding.htm.
>
> This further reinforces my claim that the Bible's opening Hebrew words
> represent a supreme example of _non-biological ID_ - a claim that no-one
> has been able to refute. Iain - an expert in the analysis of number sets,
> and personally well-acquainted with these phenomena - has recently aired
> the 3 possble explanations: (1) The pattern is a complete coincidence; (2)
> The pattern is deliberate and was put there by human authors; and (3) The
> pattern is deliberate and is intentional Divine action for some purpose.
> He rules out the first with the words "I think there are sound methods for
> showing that (1) is not the case." (and surely this must be one's gut
> feeling when presented with a body of data possessing such rock-like
> integrity, intensity and cohesion). As you yourself have pointed out, the
> appearance of 'e' in the general proceedings appears to rule out (2) -
> added to which we have the problem that the writing of Genesis 1:1
> _preceded_ the Hebrew scheme of alphabetic numeration by many centuries;
> and again, that the Greek forms of the Lord's name and title (closely
> integrated with Genesis 1:1) appear in the Septuagint (a translation of
> the OT dating from around 300 BC). We are therefore left with option (3).
>
> What do you suggest we do about it? The application of our God-given
> reason has led us to this critical point. Is it not appropriate - indeed,
> essential (if we are to honour the Author of it all!) - that we continue
> to exercise that reason in prayerful consideration of what the purpose of
> these wonders might be? Can there be a better forum than ASA in which to
> do this?
>
> Regards,
>
> Vernon
> www.otherbiblecode.com
>
>
>
Received on Tue Jan 10 20:09:26 2006