Re: By Design (was Re: Numbers)

From: John Burgeson (
Date: Sat Mar 08 2003 - 13:55:52 EST

  • Next message: George Murphy: "Re: Genealogies (was Re: personal revelations)"

    Vernon wrote:

    "But what I think has first to be established, and generally agreed upon, is
    the vanishingly small probability that these phenomena may be attributed to
    chance. Are you really that
    unimpressed by the '10 billion to 1 against' scenario associated with the
    'pi / e' affair?"

    In a word, yes.

    What are the odds, Vernon, that of -- say -- the last 10,000 male-female
    matings that most certainly took place to produce a "Vernon Jenkins," that
    the "Vernon Jenkins" you know yourself to be would actually come to be? 10 B
    to 1 would be an estimate far too low.

    I applaude your zeal in promoting your ideas, but I simply do not find them
    (or any Bible numerics) to be in the least persuasive. I keep asking "what
    if Vernon is right?" and the only answer that comes is "it makes no
    conceivable difference."

    A year or so ago I made some specific suggestions to you about your claim --
    how it might be reinforced (or falsified). I also posed some questions (like
    -- is the base 10 numbering system possibly divine?) The last time I visited
    your site I saw no evidence you had heard me.

    I am in correspondence with another list member (off line) who also has a
    somewhat controversial thesis, one which I cannot accept. Unlike you, he
    appears to be making efforts to reshape his thinking, based on our dialog.
    It helps that there is at least one 11th century mystic that appears to have
    already considered his thesis.


    The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Mar 08 2003 - 13:56:05 EST