Re: Comments on Snoke's approach

From: Randy Isaac <>
Date: Thu Sep 22 2005 - 21:48:51 EDT

    The short answer is no. But the issue you raise deserves a longer and more thoughtful response because issues of probability and remarkable patterns continue to be poorly misunderstood by many people and are frequently misused.

    Let me start with the well-worn, oft-used analogy of dealing a hand of bridge. Pick up your cards and no matter what cards you have, you could truthfully exclaim that the probability of your being dealt that particular hand is infinitesimally small. But you wouldn't be justified on that basis in accusing the dealer of cheating and manipulating the cards. However, if prior to dealing the cards, someone had written down a possible hand and if after the hand is dealt the cards match that specific pattern, you would indeed be justified in suspecting foul play. The point is that merely having an extremely low probability of occurrence is not an argument for cheating--or for design. Consideration must be given to the bigger picture such as the number of combinations possible. For a hand of cards, the number of possibilities is also vast so that the probability of having a low-probability hand is actually one hundred percent.

    When applied to your numero/geometrical findings, it isn't nearly as easy to calculate the number of possibilities as it is in a deck of cards. But it is fair to say that the total number of possible geometric or numerical results is incredibly vast and that every one of them has a low probability of occurring. As in the deck of cards, whatever combination arises, it will be a low-probability combination. Even if the combination has some degree of interest, there is no significance whatsoever unless there is a specific prior detailed articulation of the pattern to be expected. No, I'm sorry but Rev. 13:18 doesn't even come close to such an articulation.

    What about evolution? Anti-evolution literature often includes someone saying that the probability of occurrence is so low that it couldn't have happened. The simplest form is considering DNA as the random sequence of any of the 4 nucleotides and calculating the probability of a particular sequence occurring. Of course that number is infinitesimal but it has no meaning. On the one hand, DNA doesn't get assembled by a totally random concatenation of nucleotides. On the other, low probability doesn't mean it can't happen. We have to understand the bigger picture of what the possibilities are. One could argue effectively that once there exists a reproducing organism, the probability that in time there would be a vast diverse range of species is close to unity. Far less well understood is the generation of such an initial living reproducing organism from non-organic material. We don't know enough to say it couldn't have happened any more than we can say it was bound to happen.


----- Original Message -----
  From: Vernon Jenkins
  To: Randy Isaac
  Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 7:17 PM
  Subject: Re: Comments on Snoke's approach


  I've been looking again at some remarks you made (14/8/05) concerning the numerical and
  geometrical information obtained from a fair alternative reading of certain significant and strategically-placed Hebrew and Greek words of the Judeo-Christian Scriptures. I quote:


  To conclude, I hope we can now agree that these numero/geometrical findings should no longer be dismissed as data non grata by members of this forum - and beyond. They surely deserve better than to be 'kicked into the long grass', and ignored or forgotten!

Received on Thu Sep 22 21:51:39 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Sep 22 2005 - 21:51:39 EDT