As I have often noted, I have chosen a position in which both the
conservatives, like you and the liberals like George, don't like my
position whatsoever. I think I need to do a better job of chosing my
At 09:42 PM 08/14/1999 +0100, Vernon Jenkins wrote:
>2) I then commented on your understanding of God's faithfulness in
>respect of the 'natural laws', and the problem of incorporating
>'miracle' into that understanding. You responded:
>> I didn't say God couldn't overcome his own laws. I will rephrase my
>> statement. God will, under non-miraculous circumstances honor the
>> laws he set in motion.
>You are evading the issue. How can we know the nature of these
>'circumstances' at any point in time? Doesn't He do what pleases Him? As
>believers, should that affect our trust in Him? Doesn't He know best?
Yes, God knows best. But that doesn't mean that you or I know best. All we
can look at is the evidence that we have before our eyes. If we ignore
that evidence, then we are declaring that we know what is best and how God
did what he did.
>3) Knowing you to be an avid student of empirical data (from whatever
>source - as I naturally assumed!), I again attempted to draw your
>attention to the standing miracle of Genesis 1:1. You responded:
>> I see no numerical miracle in Genesis 1:1. I see a bit of
>> self-delusion because numeralogy brings out numerous surprises. As I
>> told you long ago about the passage in Moby Dick which predicted an
>> assassination through numeralogy. Coincidences happen.
>Whilst I would agree that numbers represent an exceedingly flexible
>medium for the exercise of 'self-delusion', I am surprised you should
>level that charge in respect of the geometrical and symbolic
>implications of the Genesis 1:1 data as presented at the URLs given
>below. Your reference to Moby Dick (involving the technique of ELS -
>Equidistant Letter Sequences - described by Drosnin in 'The Bible Code')
>is completely irrelevant - as you would know if you had studied the
>facts! To label these matters 'numerology' is to imply that they are not
>fit for consumption by 'serious' scientists! In my book, that is a
>convenient 'cop out' - and, incidentally, a fine example of CD!
I have seen the same parlor tricks done with the dimensional measurements
of a desk. That is observational evidence also and no one believes that
God designed the desk.
>4) To test your selectivity further, I presume you are already aware of
>the recent article 'Is nothing sacred' by John Barrow - professor of
>mathematical sciences, Cambridge, UK. The sub-title explains: 'Call it
>heresy, but all the big cosmological problems will simply melt away, if
>you break one rule...the rule that says the speed of light never
>varies'. It can be found at
>It really is very convincing, and suggests that you and others may well
>be directing your anti-YEC attacks from atop a 'house of cards'!
Sorry Vernon, but I really don't care if the theory of relativity is
correct or not. I have seen that article by Barrow and pointed out to the
young-earther who directed me to it that it does no good for the YEC cause.
Why? Because in order for Barrow's suggestion to work, the universe MUST
be billions of years old. As to me being atop a house of cards, my data
mostly comes from geology, paleontology and anthropology. If relativity
fails (which I don't think it will; It might be subsumed into a bigger
theory however), then my data still stands as it doesn't depend upon
Foundation, Fall and Flood
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Lots of information on creation/evolution