Re: Small probabilities

Randy,

Clearly, whilst we agree to differ in respect of the significance of GF -
i.e. the 'Genesis Factors' (an all-embracing and appropriate title, I
suggest, for the bible-based numerical phenomena that have formed the basis
of our discussions), I'm sure we can, with confidence, join in proclaiming
the Bible's first verse - as rendered in its original Hebrew - to be the
most remarkable combination of words ever written. For whether we count it
to be a miracle of chance, or a message from God, it must be rated a
_wonder_ of the modern world. However, heartening as I find this to be, you
appear to overlook the fact that the 'business end' of these events appears
at the very _threshold_ of an _extraordinary Book_.

In his pastoral letters to Timothy, the Apostle Paul writes "All scripture
is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof,
for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be
perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." (2Tm.3:16-17, AV). I
think we would agree that 'all scripture' must include GF, for these are an
integral part of the original Hebrew and Greek texts - as we have seen. It
therefore follows (provided, of course, that one accepts that the Bible is
so inspired) that GF can be no _chance event_!

As a beginning, therefore, don't you think it appropriate that ASA members
be encouraged to make this powerful tool of Christian apologetics and
evangelism more widely known?

Vernon
www.otherbiblecode.com

----- Original Message -----
From: "Randy Isaac" <randyisaac@adelphia.net>
To: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 1:08 AM
Subject: 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
>
Received on Thu Jan 12 16:56:28 2006