Re: Small probabilities

With respect to your last paragraph...

Aside from my own skepticism as to the nature of the orderly derivations
you present, just as a practical matter, the geometries and rationales
you offer are sufficiently arcane for very few to even follow, much less
accept on that basis as the evidence you offer. This ASA audience is
uncharacteristic in that overall it much more prepared to at least get a
sense of what you offer. If the analysis has intrinsic persuasiveness,
this audience should be more capable of walking with you through the
work and conclusions. That has not proven to be the case. It is no
stretch then to suggest that any persuasiveness to a more general
audience would likely be more based on something other than the analyses
you present per se (how articulate is the presenter; how effectively
does he convey his sense of conviction as to the meaning and
significance of his work). That being the liklihood, unfortunately I
don't see this as the powerful instrument you so want it to be, mainly
because of the difficulty of placing it into competent hands for
presentation by another. Respectfully JimA.

Vernon Jenkins wrote:

> 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 19:15:46 2006