John A. Broussard

I, for one, fully accept that Gen. 1. is extremely improbable.

Thief of Time

You're being asked what kind of thing would show your result is coincidental and meaningless, and you just say (cryptically) that there are other unlikely things in Gen 1.1
This doesn't relate to the question itself, however, and I think reddish would like a direct answer. Even if that answer is 'nothing'.
Be direct, rather than reffering to previous posts.

Pmarra

I can accept that Gen1.1 is a sentence as the other sentences and therefore coincidental and meaningless

only in the circumstance that you find a lot of other sentences with inside the extremely unlikely numerical phenomenons of Gen1.1

reddish

But the existence of unlikely numerical phenomena in Genesis 1 is the point of contention!

I am basically asking you for a way to falsify your position, and you posit a falsification that presumes your position....

Don't you see yourself that you are engaging in circular reasoning?

TNorthover

I've only just realised (possibly due to being dense) that the numbers he's come up with are not base-independent. Because he's allowing division by an arbitrary power of 10 the answer would be completely different in binary or octal or similar, and not involve pi at all.

This opens up huge numbers of extra chances of finding relations, and also makes the results mathematically far less interesting than they were originally.

Also, I suspect most mathematicians would agree that the results could be said to be intrinsically uglier for this reason (I certainly would).

In a word, yuck!

Pmarra

I can understand your doubts

but to remove every your doubt they are not enough few words

for this reason I point out you a study of another scientist that has studied a lot the biblical numerical language

this scientist speaking of the extreme improbability of Gen1.1 says

5 - A notable factor
On the average, in any randomly-selected set of integers, 1 in every 37 will be a multiple of 37. Applying this principle to the 127 values represented by the 7 words of Genesis 1:1 and their various combinations, it is to be expected that 3 or 4 will have 37 as a factor.

As has been shown here, there are actually 23 - ie over 6 times the expected number!

This result becomes a dramatic feature of the accompanying factor profile for the verse where, for each of the values over the range 2 to 50, the frequency of its occurrence as factor in the set of 127 values determines the height of the corresponding column.
The ideal profile - delineated by the smaller white squares - provides a backcloth against which the significance of the event may be assessed.

In addition, when we consider again the singular attributes of 37 per se,

it is indeed difficult to argue that this particular set is random!

http://homepage.virgin.net/vernon.je...Conviction.htm

reddish

Another scientist?

Are you implying that you are a scientist?

Please present your credentials.

Schneibster

"A social sciences manual for neolithic, superstitious, smelly sheep herders that a bunch of idiots think has to be literally true in order to beLIEve in it." I've read it, and there ain't much more to it than that. Frank BS about some "word" that got "broken up over the centuries" is drivel, completely free of meaningful content (as much of the superstitious neolithic sheep herders' blatherings is as well). I have absolutely no idea how this thread got to five pages in this forum unless you are unusually masochistic.

Pmarra

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
A scientist is a person who is expert in an area of science and who uses scientific methodology in researching that area. Upon the request of the poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge in 1833, William Whewell invented the English word "scientist"; before this time the only terms in use were "natural philosopher" and "man of science".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientist

Thief of Time

Yet you did not answer the doubts over the number base. You appealed to authority, ie another numerologist.
And, you did not present your credentials, when explicitly asked.