[asa] Re: The Challenge (was Advice for conversing with YECs)

On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 12:23 AM, Vernon Jenkins
<vernon.jenkins@virgin.net> wrote:
> On 27 October Iain Strachan wrote in part "...Vernon, are you prepared to
> accept that your numerical discoveries in the first verse of Genesis
> are...no 'proof '...that the text is divinely inspired?
>
> Iain,
>
> Rather than speak of 'proof ' (in the mathematical sense) I am happy to
> follow your lead when you describe Francis Collins as presenting
> 'overwhelmingly convincing evidence of evolution '. I believe - and am able
> to demonstrate - that the Bible's opening Hebrew words present
> overwhelmingly convincing evidence of divine inspiration and purpose (and I
> believe that trumps anything FC ever wrote!) -

Unless you've actually read everything Francis Collins ever wrote,
then you have absolutely no basis for making that claim. Quite
frankly it sounds like someone in the school playground protesting "my
discovery's better than yours". You do yourself no favours at all
making those claims. Instead I suggest you get a copy of "The
Language of God" and read it for yourself. You will find that Collins
is an incredibly gracious person, who has a very moving testimony of
his own. I'm afraid I don't find what you write at all gracious - in
fact you persistently try to bully people into accepting your
creationist point of view by loudly proclaiming this "Standing
Miracle" as you call it.

But as I have pointed out time and time over, and you are unwilling to
listen, although I think it is quite clear that the patterns in
Genesis 1:1 and the associated pattterns in John 1:1 are quite
definitely intentional - I do NOT consider them as some sort of
"proof", or even evidence to suggest that the whole of the 7 day
creation narrative is literally true. It is, as I have pointed out to
you before, a complete "non sequitur".

I suggest, if the numerical pattern of the first verse (and some
sporadic other verses) has intent, and a meaning to be found, then it
leads to quite a different interpretation to yours. When I looked at
this, I also attempted to analyse the CV patterns of the entire 469
words of the creation narrative ( I think 1:1 to 2:4a). I did not
find that the intense numerical patterns based around triangular
numbers and multiples of 37 extended much beyond the first verse. The
total sum for the entire account was not a number related at all to
the numbers you present on your web-page. The total value came to
110601, which is not a figurate number at all, having prime factors
3x3x12289.

So if one were to suggest a meaning behind the pattern in the first
verse, indicative of divine intent, perhaps the meaning would be to
turn the spotlight on the first verse, which states clearly that God
created the heavens and the earth, with less importance on the rest of
the account that doesn't seem to have a numerical watermark placed on
it.

If the entire account had been found to have detailed and spectacular
numerical patterns, then one might be tempted to see it differently.
But I found no such evidence, despite sincerely attempting to find
such evidence.

I would also add that I do not find your new page to be at all
persuasive; it adds little to what has been discovered before. You
point out that each of the differences in the CV's of the first 8
words were all expressible as integer linear combinations of the three
numbers 500, 99 and 105. However, this is not at all surprising from
what we know before - the first eight words have CV's that are all a
multiple of six modulo 37 [ -12 18 12 -6 -12 0 0 6]. You will also
note that the three new numbers have the same property, being -12, -6
and -18 modulo 37. Hence it isn't surprising at all that integer
linear combinations would map onto the differences. So I don't think
what you write adds anything new.

Iain

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Nov 8 18:54:22 2008