Re: [asa] Empiricism, Faith and Science

Iain wrote,

<<I'll just content myself with a few points ... it's clear that you don't want to engage with the data, and in that matter you are just as closed minded as YEC's who won't engage with the data that there is an old earth.>>

There is a significant difference, however, YECs are saying that the prehistoric findings of astronomy, anthropology, archaeology, biology, dendrochronology, genetics, geology, glaciology, oceanography, paleontology, and other sciences are all mistaken even though they all have objective data to back them up. I am only saying that numerology, of which Vernon's pattern is one case, has no sound foundation. I do not think these are comparable.

<<PS: I think Vernon could remove the two aleph-taus and still come up with a new impressive pattern.

IS: I think for you to justify this assertion, then it's beholden on you to come up with the pattern. Otherwise the assertion is just no more than speculation. Remove the two aleph-taus and the sum of the resultant six words is 1899. I could not discern any internal structure in the sub-sums. You tell me what's impressive about the sum, and then compare it with the patterns shown on Vernon's web page. I'll give you a start 1899 = 3.3.211 . You'll have to come up with a pattern that is considerably more impressive than that. If you're not prepared to do that, then you shouldn't make assertions like the above.>>

I said Vernon could come up with an impressive pattern without the aleph-tau's not that you or I could. But, he doesn't want to. Nevertheless, I accept your complaint as legitimate. However, I am not the man for the job. I have already written off numerology from other experiences with it. Since you want serious careful analysis, I suggest you contact those men who have written answers (magazine or journal articles or books) to various "Bible code" books. They seem to be interested enough to carefully analyze such things.

<<PS: As for the argument that it would be even more of a miracle if the pattern did not appear until the last scribe updated the grammar, I admit that my call (sounds like magic, not biblical miracle) is a judgement call, but unlike Dawkins it is not purely subjective: it is based on the nature of miracles as they appear in Scripture.

IS: I think you are being purely subjective. Throwing down a rod and making it turn into a snake looks like magic. Walking on water looks like magic. >>

But if you look at _all_ of the miracles in Scripture, you do not find a pattern of magic. The "rod to snake and back" was in the context of Egyptian magic and magicians and hence adapted to their mentality. The walking on the water was in context not magic but a demonstration of the divine character of Christ, which is a central issue in Christianity.

 Vernon may argue that his pattern is a demonstration of the divine inspiration of Scripture, but only a few who can think like that will be impressed by it--albeit maybe that is enough to justify it. There might be Moslems, for example, doing something like this with the Koran, if so, Vernon's pattern might be a good answer to them.

Paul

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Sep 24 19:30:50 2006