From: Vernon Jenkins <vernon.jenkins@virgin.net>

Date: Mon Sep 27 2004 - 16:30:39 EDT

Date: Mon Sep 27 2004 - 16:30:39 EDT

David,

Thanks for these observations. You will find my responses interspersed

below.

Vernon

www.otherbiblecode.com

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

From: "bivalve" <bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com>

To: "ASA" <asa@calvin.edu>

Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 7:51 PM

Subject: Re: A word of appreciation

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

*>
*

*> A major difficulty is that this is an a posteriori observation. It would
*

be just as interesting to have Genesis 1:1 generating e, the golden ratio,

the square root of 2, the fine structure constant...

Agreed. But when a large number of empirical observations suggest that the

number structure attending the Bible's first verse is indeed rather special

then I'm sure you would agree that raising these objections about the

evaluation of pi in particular is hardly convincing. David Siemens chose to

follow the same path, but then quickly withdrew from further dialogue when I

pointed out that the presence of this fundamental constant was merely the

'icing on the cake'; that, in fact, there was a good deal more to be

considered.

*>
*

*> There is a 100 percent chance that the formula will generate a number
*

based on a selected verse.

*>
*

*> The chance that this number is interesting depends on the total number of
*

interesting numbers, plus an allowance for the number of acceptably simple

formulas.

Perhaps I should point out that the fine structure constant is also

represented in Genesis 1:1. See the details at

http://homepage.virgin.net/tgvernon.jenkins/Blueprint_2.htm

*>
*

*> Although the proof that every number is interesting is facetious, one can
*

find interesting patters related to almost any number.

The kind of patterns that are the rarest, and most interesting of course,

are those based on numerical geometry. It is these mathematical absolutes

that represent the true basis of my thesis concerning Genesis 1:1. You may

find the essential features listed as items #1- #13 of my page

http://homepage.virgin.net/tgvernon.jenkins/Wonders.htm

*>
*

*> Similar difficulties often apply to probability claims regarding
*

evolution. Until we know how many different possible ways there might be to

make a functional equivalent, we cannot calculate the most relevant

probabilities. For example, there are over 6 billion DNA sequences that

have produced humans so far-still small relative to the total number of base

pairs involved, but large relative to the probability of generating a single

selected arrangement of bases that long.

*>
*

*>
*

*> Another difficulty is that pi can be generated by relatively simple
*

formulas from other sources. For example, if I remember correctly, the

probability of a stick of a certain length landing on a crack when tossed

onto a regular grid is a function of pi. Similar logic could thus be used

to conclude that divination using randomly tossed objects is an

authoritative source of revelation.

I don't understand the point of this statement. 'Buffon's Needle' is a

simple Monte Carlo procedure for the estimation of pi. Where is the 'similar

logic' that would support divination?

*>
*

*> Analagously, claimed evidence of design in nature fails to tell who the
*

designer is. My invertebrate class lecture just covered some extremely

complex and intricate systems that the text admitted are challenging to

explain evolutionarily. However, these are the life cycles of flukes, and

no ID advocate that I know of has claimed that an intelligent designer is

responsible for the elaborate series of events necessary to get our guts

infested with worms. Starting from that piece of "evidence", one might

suggest a designer resembling a Hollywood mad scientist.

David, if you were prepared to carefully examine the evidence offered at the

URLs above I suggest the identity of the Author of this most remarkable

combination of words ever written would be quite obvious.

*>
*

*> Dr. David Campbell
*

*> Old Seashells
*

*> University of Alabama
*

*> Biodiversity & Systematics
*

*> Dept. Biological Sciences
*

*> Box 870345
*

*> Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0345 USA
*

*> bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com
*

*>
*

*> That is Uncle Joe, taken in the masonic regalia of a Grand Exalted
*

Periwinkle of the Mystic Order of Whelks-P.G. Wodehouse, Romance at

Droitgate Spa

*>
*

*>
*

Received on Mon Sep 27 16:58:20 2004

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8
: Mon Sep 27 2004 - 16:58:21 EDT
*