From: Michael Roberts <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>

Date: Tue Sep 21 2004 - 02:36:54 EDT

Date: Tue Sep 21 2004 - 02:36:54 EDT

You are right David

Michael

----- Original Message -----

From: "D. F. Siemens, Jr." <dfsiemensjr@juno.com>

To: <pruest@mysunrise.ch>

Cc: <vernon.jenkins@virgin.net>; <iain.g.d.strachan@ntlworld.com>;

<asa@calvin.edu>

Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2004 4:00 AM

Subject: Re: A word of appreciation

*>
*

*> On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 17:03:49 +0200 Peter Ruest <pruest@mysunrise.ch>
*

*> writes:
*

*> >
*

*> > Vernon Jenkins expressed his appreciation that this list was more
*

*> > tolerant of his posts than a YEC list he tried. In response, he
*

*> > again
*

*> > got quite negative comments (to put it mildly) about his endeavors!
*

*> > I
*

*> > feel I have to jump in here and remind the list of a few points.
*

*> >
*

*> > (1) Three years ago, when Vernon presented the findings of pretty
*

*> > accurate values of pi in Gen.1:1 and e in John 1:1, I confirmed his
*

*> >
*

*> > findings and reported it to the list. The fractional deviations are
*

*> >
*

*> > about 4x10^-6 for each case.
*

*> >
*

*> > (2) I asked for opinions about estimating the significance. The only
*

*> >
*

*> > answer I got was from Iain Strachan who wrote me on 5 Jul 2001
*

*> > (off-list, but I quote him here with his permission he gave me
*

*> > then):
*

*> >
*

*> > "As far as the probability is concerned, I calculated the
*

*> > distribution
*

*> > of the logarithm of the number computed by Vernon's formula, and
*

*> > found
*

*> > it to be, to all intents and purposes a uniform random variable in
*

*> > the
*

*> > range from zero to 1. You are right in stating that you expect one
*

*> > of
*

*> > the 5000 or so verses to come within 10^-4, and that therefore it is
*

*> >
*

*> > perhaps not that unlikely that one of them is within 10^-5.
*

*> > However,
*

*> > the chance of any _pre-specified_ verse being this close, given a
*

*> > uniform distribution, is indeed 10^-5. As you are aware, Vernon has
*

*> >
*

*> > indicated a large number of other numerical properties of the text
*

*> > of
*

*> > Gen 1:1 as well, so I think it's fair to state that the chance that
*

*> >
*

*> > _this one_ comes within 10^-5 is indeed as stated, because it
*

*> > already
*

*> > seems to exhibit other, independent properties. If some arbitrary
*

*> > other
*

*> > verse anywhere else in the Torah had come within 10^-5 of pi, then I
*

*> >
*

*> > would not have assigned anything remarkable to it. The fact remains
*

*> >
*

*> > that the very first verse is the closest to pi, and it is an order
*

*> > of
*

*> > magnitude closer than any other verse. (I should note here that the
*

*> >
*

*> > division into verses is perhaps arbitrary, as the original text was
*

*> > not
*

*> > so divided, but one had to adopt some division in order to compute
*

*> > the
*

*> > statistics).
*

*> >
*

*> > "If one were being ultra conservative, one would not multiply up the
*

*> >
*

*> > probabilities of it independently occurring in Gen 1:1 and John 1:1.
*

*> > It
*

*> > has been argued (B...'s recent post) that the formula is an
*

*> > arbitrary
*

*> > one, plucked out of thin air; one might accuse Vernon (actually it
*

*> > was
*

*> > not Vernon who discovered this) of concocting a formula to make the
*

*> >
*

*> > numbers come to an interesting constant. So to be ultra
*

*> > conservative,
*

*> > one should only take the value given in John 1:1 (what I would term
*

*> > the
*

*> > "validation set"), and cite that probability (as now the formula is
*

*> >
*

*> > pre-specified). It is still 10^-5, which looks well beyond
*

*> > coincidence. Additionally there are other striking integer based
*

*> > numerical properties in John 1:1 which relate to the numerical
*

*> > geometry
*

*> > findings that Vernon published in Gen 1:1.
*

*> >
*

*> > "However, in response to the accusation that it was an arbitrary
*

*> > formula, Vernon subsequently challenged B... to produce an
*

*> > arbitrary
*

*> > mathematical formula of similar simplicity that mapped the first 26
*

*> >
*

*> > digits of pi to the name "VernonJenkins". This, I believe
*

*> > demonstrates
*

*> > that it isn't too easy to come up with simple mathematical
*

*> > transformations that give the desired results."
*

*> >
*

*> > (3) As far as I am aware, there are no known reading variants among
*

*> > all
*

*> > available manuscripts for these two verses. Each of them represents
*

*> > a
*

*> > self-contained proclamation, which makes it hardly reasonable to
*

*> > claim
*

*> > these verse delimitations to be arbitrary. Both verses are clearly
*

*> > of
*

*> > very fundamental theological significance for the Old and New
*

*> > Testaments, respectively. They are clearly not the only fundamental
*

*> >
*

*> > ones, but how many others would you add to the list - 10, 20, 50...?
*

*> >
*

*> > Certainly not 5000! Thus, Iain's probability estimates are very
*

*> > conservative, if anything.
*

*> >
*

*> > (4) Vernon's findings about pi and e have been challenged on the
*

*> > basis
*

*> > of their being only approximations, rather than the exact values -
*

*> > which
*

*> > God surely knows! This challenge is quite off-track, as there is
*

*> > really
*

*> > no reason to suppose (and Vernon never claimed it, as far as I know)
*

*> >
*

*> > that God should have produced the exact values if anything -
*

*> > particularly since both pi and e are transcendental.
*

*> >
*

*> > (5) In any context of scientific investigation yielding such
*

*> > estimates
*

*> > of probability, a charge of coincidence would be considered absurd.
*

*> >
*

*> > Whatever any of us think they should do with these findings is a
*

*> > personal matter, but let's be fair with Vernon! The finding as such
*

*> > _is_
*

*> > indeed very interesting, and no one has yet produced any reasonable
*

*> >
*

*> > suggestion as to how it could have been fabricated or resulted from
*

*> >
*

*> > coincidence.
*

*> >
*

*> > (Now please don't charge me again with claiming the Bible to "teach
*

*> >
*

*> > science"!)
*

*> >
*

*> > Peter
*

*> >
*

*> >
*

*> > --
*

*> > Dr. Peter Ruest, CH-3148 Lanzenhaeusern, Switzerland
*

*> > <pruest@dplanet.ch> - Biochemistry - Creation and evolution
*

*> > "..the work which God created to evolve it" (Genesis 2:3)
*

*> >
*

*> Peter,
*

*> Your position would rebut my argument were I to try to use it against
*

*> you. However, you are failing to note that Vernon holds that inspired
*

*> scripture is absolute truth and requires no interpretation--you read it
*

*> just as it is without qualification or modification. An unqualified
*

*> approximation to a transcendental value is not the absolute truth, so it
*

*> cannot conform to the reuired dicta. This renders Iain's calculation
*

*> irrelevant in support of Vernon.
*

*> Dave
*

*>
*

*>
*

Received on Tue Sep 21 03:52:31 2004

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8
: Tue Sep 21 2004 - 03:52:33 EDT
*