Re: [asa] Designed Kangaroos?

From: Michael Roberts <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
Date: Sat Aug 04 2007 - 17:23:46 EDT

Tomorrow I shall preach on the Transfiguration (whose occurrence I believe in). I shall try to convince the congregation they need a changing vision and experience of Christ.

37x73 will be no help whatsoever

Michael
----- Original Message -----
  From: Iain Strachan
  To: Vernon Jenkins
  Cc: Michael Roberts ; Merv ; asa@calvin.edu ; Ted Davis ; Peter Loose
  Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2007 10:16 PM
  Subject: Re: [asa] Designed Kangaroos?

  Vernon,

  As a matter of fact, a few years back when I first came across your findings, I DID present them to an atheist colleague. They had precisely no effect. He argued that

  (1) Human beings are good at spotting patterns even in random sequences.
  (2) Even given the sequence is deliberate, it could have been achieved (in his opinion) by a genius working on the first sentence for 20 years.

  (Both of these arguments have been presented, in one form or other on this list. While I don't agree with that, it seems to me that all you do in response to it is to tell everyone how wicked they are, which really doesn't help your case at all).

  When I first wrote to you concerning your website, I asked you what it was FOR. (The numerical patternings). The overwhelming evidence, given the responses you have received from people on the list, and those I got from my colleague, I see that there is little point in presenting the findings (fascinating and an unresolved mystery though they are) to colleagues. It would be much better to present them the Gospel. But before even that, we have to get through the fact that the most visible thing evangelical Christians are doing at the moment is opposing Darwinism, and coming up with the most ridiculous pseudo-science to justify it. That gets in the way of the Gospel.

  Let me ask you; what is the more important thing to explain to non-believers - (1) That Jesus died for their sins so they might have eternal life, or (2) That the numerical value of Genesis 1:1 is 37x73?

  Your website "whatabeginning" states at the start that it is dedicated to the service of Jesus Christ. The it goes into a rant about Darwinism. Where does it tell me what the Gospel is? I searched for the word "gospel" on that page, and found it conspicuously absent.

  In fact, I conducted an "Advanced" Google search for the word "Gospel" on "whatabeginning.com" and found only four occurrences on the whole website. Three of these just referred to "John's Gospel", and a forth referred to the "gospel message", without explaining what it was. Likewise there was only one reference to "crucified", again without the slightest explanation of WHY Jesus was crucified.

  The numerical phenomena are fascinating, and in need of exploration and explanation, but it seems to me that as a apologetic site, you MUST think about telling people in clear and simple language, in a prominent place what the Gospel message is. Because that, through the action of the Holy Spirit, is what is going to convict people, and not evidence of numerical design.

  Iain

  On 8/4/07, Vernon Jenkins <vernon.jenkins@virgin.net> wrote:
    Iain,

    Concerning your dealings with your atheist colleagues, you appear to be missing my point. What concerns me is that you didn't even _try_ to point them to objective evidence of supernatural cause and effect - an apologetic which, short of direct action by the Holy Spirit Himself, must be considered as powerful as any in the Christian's armoury - as your critique implies!

    You challenge me to furnish 'concrete evidence' that this apologetic has brought - and is bringing - people to Christ. Clearly (as you must know!), I'm not in a position to do that. The Lord alone knows the score. However, the fact that I _try_ places me on a parallel with all faithful preachers of the Gospel. In your case, how can there be an assessment of fruits before and until the word is broadcast?

    While it is true that you never went as far as claiming that this apologetic is intended to uphold a literal reading of the Genesis narratives, you may care to suggest what the _real_ reason might be. I look forward to hearing your views on this important matter. As I see it, all the evidence points to the fact that the biblical text is _self-authenticating_.

    Vernon

    www.whatabeginning.com

    www.otherbiblecode.com

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Iain Strachan
      To: Vernon Jenkins
      Cc: Michael Roberts ; Merv ; asa@calvin.edu ; Ted Davis ; Peter Loose
      Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 5:49 PM
      Subject: Re: [asa] Designed Kangaroos?

      On 8/3/07, Vernon Jenkins <vernon.jenkins@virgin.net> wrote:
        Seekers of Truth,

        Congratulations, Michael! It's a pity that your adherence to the inquisitiveness that is expected of a scientist doesn't match your zeal for internet sleuthing! Am I to understand that Peter's association with Dr Andrew Snelling is to be regarded as a _cardinal sin_? Instead of breathing out fire and brimstone like Saul of old, why not focus your attention on finding acceptable answers to the following:

      The answer to that is pretty simple. I think Peter is being disingenuous by not being up-front about his evident YEC connections. I note that when I challenged him about some of the more ludicrous YEC absurdities ( where did all the poo go on the Ark - discussed by John Woodmorappe in his book "Noah's Ark - A feasibility Study"), that Peter just said that he'd not raised such issues. But nonetheless these are the issues propagated by YEC's and that get noticed by people who then use it as an excuse to say that Christianity is bunk. Therefore Michael is quite right to make it clear exactly where Peter is coming from.

        Let me say, finally, that I am intrigued that Iain (who has first-hand knowledge of the biblical phenomena alluded to earlier) apparently failed to challenge his atheist colleagues with these mathematical certainties.

      OK, Vernon, you tell me just how many atheists you know whom you've successfully challenged over the numerical structure of Gen 1:1, and how many have come to faith as a result of that challenge?

      I looked into the numerical structures you found and concluded that they were of deliberate intent and also, having looked wider into it, that it seemed unlikely that they were of deliberate human origin.

      However I NEVER went as far as you in claiming that this was some sort of proof that the Genesis narratives had to be interpreted literally.

      If you can show me concrete evidence that this is a powerful apologetic tool THAT HAS BROUGHT ATHEISTS TO CHRIST then I'll consider it. If you can't then you have no reason to be "intrigued" by the fact I haven't drawn attention to it. The answer is plain and evident. It's not meant for that.

      So here's the challenge for you Vernon. How many atheists have been converted by your numerical findings?

      Iain

  --
  -----------
  After the game, the King and the pawn go back in the same box.

  - Italian Proverb
  -----------

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Aug 4 18:17:42 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Aug 04 2007 - 18:17:42 EDT