Re: [asa] A case of non-biological ID

Hi, Rich

On Jan 12, 2008 3:46 PM, Rich Blinne <rich.blinne@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Jan 12, 2008, at 7:20 AM, Iain Strachan wrote:
>
> >
> > By contrast, do you get my point that Vernon's findings (not just the
> > properties of 666), but the whole analysis of the seven values reveals
> > connected and coordinated symmetries, connected almost entirely with
> > triangular numbers and their properties? It's not that they are
> > triangular that makes them special, but the fact that there are so
> > many coordinated triangular numbers. (Though I agree that Vernon's
> > post here concentrated on 666, which leaves out all the context). But
> > if the seven were all related to, say Bell numbers or ternary square
> > words, and so forth, that again would indicate an interesting pattern.
> > In other words it's not just about finding an arcane mathematical
> > property for each of the values.
> >
>
> While I am not impressed with Vernon's theology and Biblical
> interpretation, his mathematics is impressive. Nevertheless, I just
> find the whole enterprise flawed. Given a sufficiently large work you
> can find patterns (particularly in Hebrew because of lacking the
> vowels). What Vernon has done does point to God but not in the way he
> states. Namely, it shows we are made in God's image. We look for and
> find patterns even when they are not there. But, why do we all look
> for such patterns? Because it is something deep within our make up to
> search for purpose, meaning, and teleology. This points to God more
> surely than the alleged patterns that he has found.
>

I hope you don't mind my saying so, but I get the feeling that you are
side-stepping the issue I raised. I entered this thread because you
produced a long list of numbers that had "interesting" properties -
the implication being that there was actually nothing special about
what Vernon had found because given sufficient ingenuity you can find
something interesting to say about just about any number (except, it
seems 395 from the list).

My response was to glean from the list Vernon's seven values and list
their properties and note that they were all different, and some of
them pretty obscure. I contrasted that with Vernon's properties that
were all connected with a particular type of number. That, it would
seem to me is far firmer evidence of intentionality (let's not get
into the debate yet of whose "intention").

I've looked in the past at number games played by classical music
composers, where the issue of intentionality is non-controversial -
composers, artists, poets all do that sort of thing and impose
patterns on what they do. There is no mystery, no miracle about it.
But this background did at least train me in the kind of thing to look
for, and what constituted valid research, and what constituted dodgy
numerology of the kind where you clutch at any property of a number
and attribute it to intentionality. It was my opinion that the
pattern in Genesis 1:1 was far more profound and interconnected than
anything I'd seen in musical patterns, even from composers who were
quite open about using numerology (for example Alban Berg openly
stated that he used the numbers 23 and 10 in his compositions).

So for the reasons I've outlined, I consider that the deduction that
the pattern is intentional is a pretty sound one.

I don't think you've really addressed that, and have just assumed that
it's an "alleged pattern" that isn't really there. Could you address
the issue of how perhaps one can deduce intentionality, as
distinguished from finding an obscure pattern by ingenuity.

Iain

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Jan 12 13:21:42 2008