From: John Burgeson (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Mar 11 2003 - 20:36:38 EST
Vernon -- when I reminded you a few days ago that you had never answered (or
even considered) my question of 2 years ago to you -- "Do you claim the
denery system to be inspired by God?" you admitted you had dropped the ball
on that one and asked what were the other questions I had at that time.
I think there were several, for I tried very hard to consider your claim(s)
and did do some thinking & study around them. I am reluctant to revisit
those exercises, for I'm two years older now, and there is never enough
time, but I will list what I can remember of them.
1. As far as I can see, if we were using -- say -- the babylonian notation
of numbers, none of your claims would hold together. As I recall, you
agreed, and so claimed that the denary system must, ipso facto, be inspired.
I simply asked there for you to give ANY sort of supporting evidence for
this -- else it is simply an ad hoc "explanation," that is, something
assumed w/o any supporting evidence in order to support some other claim. I
understand you are again considering this question.
2. You depend heavily on the "odds" argument, but, as has been pointed out
previously, the odds are calculated AFTER the artifact (pi and e) are
discovered. I pointed out that on that basis the probability of a "Vernon
Jenkins" was even less likely. What is needed for your claim is SOME
independent evidence which predates your discovery, or at least is
independent of it, bearing on your claim. For instance, some piece of
observable data that would PREDICT the presence of pi and e in the manner
you claim to have found them. Perhaps a prediction by some pre-scientific
philosopher who might know about a "pi" but hardly about an "e."
3. You need to establish some INDEPENDENT criteria by which the deviance
(admittedly, not much) from the actual values is justified. Frankly, this
one has me baffled -- I cannot even conceive of any observable that would
suffice for this question.
Those are 3 of the questions I can remember -- there might have been others.
Oh yes -- the question of different manuscripts; in particular manuscripts
containing Genesis. Are there variant readings? Are there the POSSIBILITY of
variant readings? I remember some discussion of the presence or absence of
something minor in John 1:1 -- and your statement that the one which
provided the transcendental value must be correct because it "proved" the
claim. I think at that time I quit thinking about your claims as such an
argument was simply begging the question.
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Mar 11 2003 - 20:37:10 EST