Can't comment on the Russian composer's use (or non-use) of numerics,
though I do enjoy his music.
You also wrote: "I also, in researching all this, consulted an eminent
mathematician, who is
a Professor of the History of Mathematics. He has written extensively on
numerology and maths in music, and also in Christianity. He is clearly
also
an atheist. While he was completely dismissive of the work of Ivan Panin
(who really "founded" the subject of Bible Numerics), he was quite
convinced
that the huge number of instances of the number 37 in NT gematria was not
coincidental. However, his line was that this was the strongest possible
evidence that human beings had written the bible, and not God, because
this
was the sort of thing humans had indulged in throughout history."
Interesting. Does this gentleman have a name?
"He was pretty surprised when I showed him the patterns in Gen 1:1, of
which he was
not aware, but still stuck to the view that it showed that humans
concocted
it all. What he did not doubt at all was that the numbers were clearly
deliberately contrived. There cannot be many instances where an atheist
and
a Creationist agree on something, but this is one of them! However, I
think
his thesis is shaky, because it depends on the unprovable assertion that
humans did this in secret, without telling anyone about it. The other
reason it is shaky is that there are many instances of this kind of thing
being deliberately done in 17th century poetry (called "poetical
paragrams"). "
Yeah -- I've heard of that. It was a fad of the 19th century, the way I
heard it.
"Contrast that with the sublime relevance (and the naturalness of
utterance)
of both Gen 1:1 and John 1:1, and I think you would have to agree that we
are in an entirely different ball park here."
No, I don't. I think we have here, assuming the 100% accuracy of Vernon's
claims, is a simple coincidence. I'd have to see consilience involved to
take it seriously. Independent evidence of the need for that particular
formuls, independent evidence for the divinity of the denary system.
Links in the scriptures to other versions of pi and e. In short -- a
whole system, not a siomple "ad hoc" evidence of something which is, at
best, mildly interesting. It is sort of like the infamous "face on Mars."
Except for a single photo -- nothing to suggest it is anything more than
an interesting natural pattern.
"I think Vernon perhaps overplays his "creationist" card and uses the
numbers
as evidence of the YEC position."
I had not noticed that Vernon was a YEC. That does not help him (with me)
gain any credibility.
"However as a result, I am extremely skeptical that biological evolution
can have taken place by the Darwinian process of natural selection and
mutation (though at the time I believed it must have, and hence was quite
bemused at the evident fact that Genetic Algorithms were so useless). If
you are at all interested in taking this discussion further, I would be
happy to oblige."
Well, FWIW, I am similarly skeptical. But then a lot of people are. But
being a skeptic does not mean I denigrate he evolution stories, for they
do hold together as the best explanatory theories we have today. That ns
and mutation are "enough" I doubt, but many "evolutionists also doubt
this." My own position is one of a "Progressive Creationist," but this is
a philosophical, not a scientific position.
Thanks for the dialog
John Burgeson (Burgy)
www.burgy.50megs.com
(science/theology, quantum mechanics, baseball, ethics,
humor, cars, God's intervention into natural causation, etc.)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jul 06 2001 - 17:46:57 EDT