Re: A word of appreciation

From: Vernon Jenkins <vernon.jenkins@virgin.net>
Date: Thu Sep 30 2004 - 18:41:34 EDT

Hi Sheila,

You said "Unfortunately, I have never seen any mathematical certainty about the age of the earth nor do I see any mathematical certainty in your essays..."

On reflection, I see that my recent comment was poorly worded. It was not my intention to claim any mathematical certainty about the age of the earth but rather to contrast Michael's devotion to an unprovable dogma with the sound mathematical principles that underpin my claims with respect to Genesis 1:1.

You continued, "... probabilities that could be just as true with other significant works. Have you ever considered doing the same analysis on Shakespeare or Hawking? Having a control set would be a great test of your theories."

Yes, I have been challenged along these lines before. For example, in the ASA archives for 2001 you may find two postings by Todd S.Green. Here are the relevant URLs: http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200106/0236.html and
http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200107/0054.html

Realising that such an exercise would be unending, I declined his suggestion - whereupon he offered to put together a software package that would enable interested parties to test selected passages of text for numerical structures of the kind found associated with Gen.1:1.
I agreed to help him in this endeavour by preparing a formal protocol. This is entitled "On testing the hypothesis that OBC*-like features are not unique to the Judeo-Christian scriptures but may be found to occur in other texts." (*OBC = Other Bible Code"). You may find this at http://homepage.virgin.net/vernon.jenkins/protodd.htm

Todd did not pursue the matter. Neither ASA nor myself have heard from him since.

Vernon
www.otherbiblecode.com
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Sheila Wilson
  To: Vernon Jenkins ; asa@calvin.edu
  Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2004 2:16 PM
  Subject: Re: A word of appreciation

  Vernon,

  Unfortunately, I have never seen any mathematical certainty about the age of the earth nor do I see any mathematical certainty in your essays. I probabilities that could be just as true with other significant works. Have you ever considered doing the same analysis on Shakespeare or Hawking? Having a control set would be a great test of your theories.

  Sheila

  Vernon Jenkins <vernon.jenkins@virgin.net> wrote:
    Well spoken, Sheila!

    It is clear that Michael fails to distinguish between a widely-held view of earth history (based upon certain disputed assumptions and deductions) and mathematical certainty. This is a serious weakness which he would do well to put right.

    Vernon
    www.otherbiblecode.com
      

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Sheila Wilson
      To: asa@calvin.edu
      Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2004 1:54 PM
      Subject: Re: A word of appreciation

      As a geologist, I absolutely agree with your assessment of the earth's age. Unfortunately, mankind's assessment of things has been very wrong in the past. The bottom line is we don't know but, given our knowledge of the evidence, we believe the earth is 4.6 billion years old. We must not forget our fallibility - that will cause us to make the same mistake as young earth creationists.

      Sheila

      Michael Roberts <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
        Can scientists afford to ignore the unsolicited sign that the earth is 4.6 by old and every attempt to disprove it has been found to be false and mischievous. He surely intends us to sit up, take notice and together consider what its implications might be.

        Michael who accepts the Babylonian maths in Genesis
          ----- Original Message -----
          From: Vernon Jenkins
          To: Sheila Wilson ; Michael Roberts
          Cc: asa@calvin.edu
          Sent: Monday, September 27, 2004 9:53 PM
          Subject: Re: A word of appreciation

          Hi Sheila,

          You said "... my salvation is not dependent upon my beliefs in the age of the earth or numerical solutions or probabilities but solely on my relationship with God through Jesus Christ." Of course, I agree with you. However, I believe that those Christians having a scientific background cannot afford to ignore the unsolicited 'sign' that has now appeared at the very portal of God's Word. For, having placed it there, He surely intends us to sit up, take notice and together consider what its implications might be.

          Vernon
          www.otherbiblecode.com

            ----- Original Message -----
            From: Sheila Wilson
            To: Michael Roberts
            Cc: asa@calvin.edu
            Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 3:39 PM
            Subject: Re: A word of appreciation

            Stymied Michael,

            As a co-infidel, I agree with you and will add that my salvation is not dependent upon my beliefs in the age of the earth or numerical solutions or probabilities but solely on my relationship with God through Jesus Christ. Debate on most of these subjects is fun and interesting but not critical to my salvation.

            Saved by Grace Sheila

            sheila-wilson@sbcglobal.net

      Sheila McGinty Wilson
      sheila-wilson@sbcglobal.net

  Sheila McGinty Wilson
  sheila-wilson@sbcglobal.net
Received on Thu Sep 30 19:31:47 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Sep 30 2004 - 19:31:48 EDT