by Dave Thomas : nmsrdaveATswcp.com (Help fight SPAM!  Please replace the AT with an @ )

Dave Thomas, NMSR President, has been involved in a most interesting e-mail exchange with Eugene Faulstich regarding his proof of the Truth of the Bible, as revealed by patterns in the numbers of weeks between key historical events.

Here follows this ongoing exchange. Eugene Faulstich's letters and comments appear in RED,

and Dave Thomas' letters and comments appear in BLUE.

Click HERE to go to the Main Discussion Page

Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000
From: Eugene Faulstich <chri@ncn.net>
To: "Dave Thomas, NMSR" <det@rt66.com>
Subject: The Age of the Earth

Hi Dave,

Please tell me what you think about the web page

mashiach6000.org

What do you think about the two scientists' comment?

Have a good day,

Gene

Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000
From: "Dave Thomas, NMSR" <det@rt66.com>
To:Eugene Faulstich <chri@ncn.net>
Subject: The Age of the Earth

Hi Gene.

Your web site is VERY hard to read. The letters are too small, and the pages are too wide to be printed easily.

The math equations are gibberish.

In my 20+ years as a working mathematician, I have never seen equations as un-intelligible as the ones displayed on your appendix page in any professional (or even semi-professional) publication. Perhaps that's just an internet Browser problem, and might be fixed by using JPEG images for the equations.

However, the verbal explanations provided throughout were also very disorganized and very hard to follow.

If you re-do the web site so it tells a clearer story, let me know, and I will have another look.

It's not worth my time as it is now.

Regards from New Mexico,
Dave Thomas

PS: I saw nothing on the site that would make me reconsider my present view of the age of the earth. Some really powerful radiometric techniques, such as nuclear isochrons or concordia/discordia, provide extremely compelling evidence that the Earth is indeed over 4.5 billion years old.

Either G_d has created a massive and elaborate hoax to trick scientists into falsely believing the Earth is old, or maybe the Earth is in fact very, very old, as it appears to be.

My personal religious faith is that G_d is not a pathological psychotic who plays cruel mind games on mere humans.

Cheers, Dave T.

 

Date:Mon, 19 Jun 2000
From: Eugene Faulstich <chri@ncn.net>
To: "Dave Thomas, NMSR" <det@rt66.com>
Subject: The Age of the Earth

Thanks for your quick response Dave.

I am sending the document in PDF, and also another web site which should
be easy for you to read.

www.ncn.net/~chri

This second site includes a lot more information concerning chronology
and patterns in history, including a one degree geocentric planet
alignment which is claimed in the Biblical text. It also includes a
list of books I have written which have received good reviews in
scholarly circles.

I hope you will have the courage to challenge it to a greater extent
than to pass it off with a swipe of the hand.

The two men who made the mathematical comment are certainly qualified to
do so. Their credentials are given in the site. I asked them to
comment. They are not on my staff. These two scientists come from far
different schools, one is a Jewish scientist from Russia, and the second
a Christian scientist from America.

Evidence provided by "evolutionists" and "creation scientists" are
neither scientific nor truthful. Neither of their work is capable of
laboratory experiment, therefore they are not science in its simplest
form. This work is based on astronomy, an exact science. The study of
the patterns is based on probability, certainly a much more exact
science than any which claims to date the age of the universe under an
evolutionary time scale. The system of lottery never looses money
because of the laws of probability.

Have a good day,

Gene

Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000
From: "Dave Thomas, NMSR" <det@rt66.com>
To:Eugene Faulstich <chri@ncn.net>
Subject: The Age of the Earth

At 04:17 PM 6/19/00 +0100, you wrote:
>Thanks for your quick response Dave.
>

It'll take a while to examine the information on the PDF pages.

But, the equations are MUCH more intelligible! Thanks.

Before I jump into examining the statistics therein, I do have some preliminary questions which MUST be answered first. These are:

(1) How were the 13 "key events" on the "mileage chart" (Burning Bush, Exodus Passover, etc.) chosen? WHO DID THE CHOOSING OF THESE KEY EVENTS?

(2) How were the astronomical dates derived for the 13 key events (and or others studied). WHO DID THE CALCULATIONS?

(3) Most importantly, who developed the matrix of weeks for the 13 key events? Did this person have ANY SAY in what the key events and/or their assigned dates were?

(4) Of the 13 key events on the mileage chart, 10 are on Friday, and the remaining 3 on Saturday (according to my own astronomical calculations.) WHY WERE NO OTHER DAYS OF THE WEEK CHOSEN?

(5) On your page about the destruction of the First Temple in 588 B.C. : My calculations agree with yours regarding Julian Day 1506874 being August 6, -587 (Julian) and a Saturday. HOWEVER, on the chart beside this, for Julian Day 1567854, I get Tuesday (in agreement with your page), BUT I calculate this is July 20, -420 (Julian), NOT July 21st, -420 as you report. How do you explain this discrepancy?

In closing, you wrote
>I hope you will have the courage to challenge it to a greater extent
>than to pass it off with a swipe of the hand.
>

And also, you wrote
> This work is based on astronomy, an exact science. The study of
>the patterns is based on probability, certainly a much more exact
>science than any which claims to date the age of the universe under an
>evolutionary time scale. The system of lottery never looses money
>because of the laws of probability.

I submit that YOU are dismissing an entire field of science - radiometric dating - with a casual 'swipe of the hand.' This science is very connected to probability theory, which you seem to consider 'precise.' In a rock with uranium, we cannot predict exactly which atoms of U-238 will decay (eject an alpha particle) at any instant, but we CAN calculate very precisely how many atoms will decay in a given time interval, or how long it will take for half of the U238 in a smaple to decay, and etc. This is very similar to insurance actuaries, who cannot say precisely when John Q. Doe will die, but CAN with confidence say how many people that are the same age and health as John Q. Doe will be alive in, say, 30 years.

Brent Dalrymple's book _The Age of the Earth_ (Stanford U. Press, 1991) has on page 377 a list of known radioactive nuclides with a *measured* half-life of one million years or more. Of the 29 nuclides listed which are NOT continually produced by atomic processes, 18 have half-lives greater than 80 million years, and 11 have half-lives LESS than 80 million years. The really interesting thing is that NONE of the nuclides with half-lives less than 80 million years are found in nature - just as we would expect for a very OLD earth. Scientists think these short-lived nuclides WERE possibly present in the primordial earth (4.5 billion years ago), but that they have all decayed away in the long time since the formation of the earth. The long-lasting (> 80 million years) nuclides are all still present in measureable amounts, as geoscientists would expect.

If the earth were a mere 6,000 years old, then ALL of the short-lived nuclides should be present in measurable amounts. Consider a nuclide with the fastest possible decay rate on the list - half-life = 1 million years. In 6000 years, the amount of nuclide remaining will be exp(-6,000/1,000,000) = 99.4% . In other words, IT WOULD STILL BE PRESENT IN ALMOST THE ORIGINAL (6,000-year-old) AMOUNTS.

If the world was created just 6000 years ago, we would expect to find BOTH the 18 slowly-decaying AND the 11 quickly-decaying isotopes in nature. Of course, G_D may have decided not to include certain of these isotopes in his creation. Let's say G_D decided to include only 18 of the 29 listed radionuclides in his creation. How many ways could He have chosen the 18 to include? The number of ways to select 18 objects from 29 is just 29!/(18!*11!) = 34,597,290 . So, there are 34,597,289 ways to select 18 isotopes from 29 that WOULD include at least one short-lived isotope. But there's only ONE way to select 18 from 29 that includes NO short-lived (<80 million years, >1 million years).

Thus, the probability that we just "happened" to live in a world that includes no short-lived isotopes is simply 1/34,597,290 = 2.9e-8 or 29 out of a BILLION.

I say that probability theory in this case strongly supports a many-billion-year-old earth.

And the cheap answer - that G_D simply chose not to include isotopes with half-lives greater than one million and less than 80 million years in His creation - brings back my previous question; why would G_D create such a pathological and devious hoax????

What say you?

Sincerely,
Dave Thomas

Date:Wed, 21 Jun 2000
From: Eugene Faulstich <chri@ncn.net>
To: "Dave Thomas, NMSR" <det@rt66.com>
Subject: The Age of the Earth


Thanks for your quick response again Dave.

>
>(1) How were the 13 "key events" on the "mileage chart" (Burning Bush,
>Exodus Passover, etc.) chosen? WHO DID THE CHOOSING OF THESE KEY
>EVENTS?

There are very few specific dates within any year given in the Bible.
These surround the following years:

a). Creation
b). The Flood
c). Exodus from Egypt
c). And the loss of the first Temple

The Exodus had quite a large number of specific dates. These we have
shown. These dates are crucial to Jewish theology. The Bible does not
date any other significant event, not even, for instance, the events in
the life of David.

The loss of the second Temple and the Return of Israel today were
selected too, because they were found to fit the patterns. This
supported Moses’ admonishment to “study the history of your fathers.”
It also seems to support the prediction made by Isaiah, “I and my people
are signs to the nations when they are on Mount Zion.” Again, Isaiah
tells us that “the prophets were given so that we could know that HaShem
was God and non other.” In fact, Isaiah challenged us to “bring other
gods and test them.”

>(2) How were the astronomical dates derived for the 13 key events (and
>or others studied). WHO DID THE CALCULATIONS?

I will include as an attachment, the computer calendar programs we
developed. One is for Macintosh and the other for pc. Be sure that the
“caps lock” is down on the pc version. These are based on the standard
formula for calculators that is used in astronomy programs. They also
include the slowing of the earth due to the gravitational pull from the
moon.

>(3) Most importantly, who developed the matrix of weeks for the 13 key
>events? Did this person have ANY SAY in what the key events and/or
>their assigned dates were?

I developed the matrix of weeks by observing the key dates in Jewish
history. I could just as easily listed the groups of sevens which look
most impressive, but then you would have asked why I omitted others.
The matrix shows all of the differences.

>(4) Of the 13 key events on the mileage chart, 10 are on Friday, and the
>remaining 3 on Saturday (according to my own astronomical calculations.)
>WHY WERE NO OTHER DAYS OF THE WEEK CHOSEN?

(See my answer to question 1) The dates determined the days of the
weeks via a computer program. I had no control over that. I chose the
only dates given directly and indirectly connected with the key turning
points in Jewish history.

>(5) On your page about the destruction of the First Temple in 588 B.C. :
>My calculations agree with yours regarding Julian Day 1506874 being August
>6, -587 (Julian) and a Saturday. HOWEVER, on the chart beside this, for
>Julian Day 1567854, I get Tuesday (in agreement with your page), BUT I
>calculate this is July 20, -420 (Julian), NOT July 21st, -420 as you
>report. How do you explain this discrepancy?

Without examining the data on a computer, I cannot tell you the answer.
It could be a typo. When you get your programs, you might check it out
yourself. The lunar calendar dates are based on sun-down, whereas the
Gregorian dates are based on midnight, and the Julian dates, I believe,
are noon or sun up. So if one looks for a lunar date, input that date.
Then look at the Gregorian and input the Gregorian. The two should be
the same. If they are one day off, it is because the computer has to
make a judgment call. The second date should be the closest to correct.

>In closing, you wrote
>>I hope you will have the courage to challenge it to a greater extent
>>than to pass it off with a swipe of the hand.

I appreciate your acceptance of this challenge. I hope that I can
reciprocate.

>And also, you wrote
>> This work is based on astronomy, an exact science. The study of
>>the patterns is based on probability, certainly a much more exact
>>science than any which claims to date the age of the universe under an
>>evolutionary time scale. The system of lottery never looses money
>>because of the laws of probability.

>I submit that YOU are dismissing an entire field of science - radiometric dating - with a casual
>'swipe of the hand.' This science is very connected to probability theory, which you seem to
>consider 'precise.' In a rock with uranium, we cannot predict exactly which atoms of U-238 will
>decay (eject an alpha particle) at any instant, but we CAN calculate very precisely how many
>atoms will decay in a given time interval, or how long it will take for half of the U238 in a smaple
>to decay, and etc. This is very similar to insurance actuaries, who cannot say precisely when
>John Q. Doe will die, but CAN with confidence say how many people that are the same age and
>health as John Q. Doe will be alive in, say, 30 years.

I am not convinced that radio metric dating is an exact science. It is
a science which has limitations because we have limited data. I have
read reports of dating clams and recent volcanoes to very old ages.
Neither am I convinced that the insurance company can tell exactly how
many people will die at an exact age. They can give you a figure which
will fall within certain parameters, and then they can bend the
percentages in their favor and charge a significant amount of money to
cover the error. On the other hand, I can guarantee that you will find
that the historical records of ancient civilizations will show random
differences between key events. On the other hand, the same should
apply to Israel. But her agreement with G-d on Sinai, her entrace and
removal from her land form Sabbath patterns. Why not patterns of some
other significant number, like 1,2,3,4,5,6,8,9, or 0? Perhaps Ezekiel’s
prophecy accounts for it (20:20).

>Brent Dalrymple's book _The Age of the Earth_ (Stanford U. Press, 1991) has on page 377 a list of
>known radioactive nuclides with a *measured* half-life of one million years or more. Of the 29
>nuclides listed which are NOT continually produced by atomic processes, 18 have half-lives
>greater than 80 million years, and 11 have half-lives LESS than 80 million years. The really
>interesting thing is that NONE of the nuclides with half-lives less than 80 million years are found in
>nature - just as we would expect for a very OLD earth. Scientists think these short-lived
>nuclides WERE possibly present in the primordial earth (4.5 billion years ago), but that they have
>all decayed away in the long time since the formation of the earth. The long-lasting (> 80 million
>years) nuclides are all still present in measureable amounts, as geoscientists would expect.


If their theory is correct... not if their scientific finding is
correct. There is no way to test anything beyond recorded history.
There is no recorded history which predates 6000 years. Therefore
theories are still theories if they cannot be tested in a laboratory.
Our work is dealing only with that which we know from recorded history,
not from theoretical history as we find in old earth theories.

On the other hand, if we had access to records of men a million years
ago, and then again ten million years ago which recorded the nuclides in
nature, you would have a more sound argument. We have such data in
chronology studies going back to 6000 years, so that is as far as we are
willing to scientifically investigate. We are not assuming time studies
beyond what the historical record allows.

>If the earth were a mere 6,000 years old, then ALL of the short-lived nuclides should be present
>in measurable amounts. Consider a nuclide with the fastest possible decay rate on the list -
>half-life = 1 million years. In 6000 years, the amount of nuclide remaining will be
>exp(-6,000/1,000,000) = 99.4% . In other words, IT WOULD STILL BE PRESENT IN ALMOST THE
>ORIGINAL (6,000-year-old) AMOUNTS.
>
>If the world was created just 6000 years ago, we would expect to find BOTH the 18
>slowly-decaying AND the 11 quickly-decaying isotopes in nature. Of course, G_D may have
>decided not to include certain of these isotopes in his creation. Let's say G_D decided to include
>only 18 of the 29 listed radionuclides in his creation. How many ways could He have chosen the
>18 to include? The number of ways to select 18 objects from 29 is just 29!/(18!*11!) =
>34,597,290 . So, there are 34,597,289 ways to select 18 isotopes from 29 that WOULD include
>at least one short-lived isotope. But there's only ONE way to select 18 from 29 that includes NO
>short-lived (<80 million years, >1 million years).
>
>Thus, the probability that we just "happened" to live in a world that includes no short-lived
>isotopes is simply 1/34,597,290 = 2.9e-8 or 29 out of a BILLION.
>
>I say that probability theory in this case strongly supports a many-billion-year-old earth.
>

Probability is not an exact science, but astronomical calculations are.
We have the dates which we can prove via astronomy. The patterns in
history would not be expected. They cannot be found in any other
history except Israel. Therefore our natural expectations are overruled
by probability studies. Since patterns exist in Israeli history, we
might expect patterns to hold in all histories, but they do not. If our
expectations do not hold in this model, why must they hold in your
model?

>And the cheap answer - that G_D simply chose not to include isotopes
>with half-lives greater than one million and less than 80 million years in
>His creation - brings back my previous question; why would G_D create such a
>pathological and devious hoax????
>

The cheap answer might be right and it might be wrong, but to make a
decision based on a lack of information is not scientific. Your
solution is your logic which is warped by your bias. To say G-d should
not have done it this way or He is a deceiver if He didn’t is not
academic, it is placing one’s self over G-d. If we are going to deal
with scientific fact, lets stay there. Our work is dealing with
statements made by ancient historians which in effect told us the
position of the sun and moon on a specific historical day. The Bible
claims that G-d ordained the history of Israel. The ancient historians
could have arranged historical records to fit patterns, but if the
historical records coincide with contemporary nations’ historical
records, that theory falls. One might assume that the Christians, at
the time of the second Temple destruction organized historical dates to
make certain patterns agree with their theology, but they rejected the
perpetuation of Israel as a chosen race of G-d. When those patterns
pick up again at the end of the German Holocaust, we might assume that
the Jews were instrumental in organizing the Holocaust so that their
patterns would fit. Not very likely in either case.

For instance, the chronology of the Persians as given by Jose Halaftah
in the Seder Olam was deliberately altered to defend Jewish theology
according to Rabbi Schwab. The Christians changed Persian chronology to
fit their concepts of eschatology. Both Jewish and Christian
theologians are shown to be wrong through chronology and the science of
astronomy. So who controlled history, G-d, chance, the Jews, or
Christians? Can our research hold its own in the scientific arena when
compared to various radio metric dating assumptions which are not
provable through the scientific method because of the lack of data?

What say you?

Sincerely,
Gene

Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000
From: "Dave Thomas, NMSR" <det@rt66.com>
To:Eugene Faulstich <chri@ncn.net>
Subject: The Age of the Earth

Thanks for the reply, Gene. I'd rather hoped that your answers would have been more substantial, but they weren't.

Before I get going, I want to mention that I'm putting our correspondence on the message board of the NMSR web site, accessible via www.nmsr.org/bullbord.htm, under "Bible Code" . I have done this because I think the public deserves to be able to see how this discussion is evolving. I trust that will be OK with you.

Here's why I was interested in WHO chose the dates analyzed, WHO calculated those dates, and WHO studied the "mileage chart" of patterns of 7's between dates.

You see, I have a theory that explains the remarkable "mileage chart" without any need to invoke the supernatural (G_D); this theory is also compatible with geological evidence that supports a very old earth.

Here's my hypothesis. I think it's entirely possible that the amazing patterns of 7's in your mileage chart may indeed represent an IMPROBABLE outcome. That is, the statistics, chi-square calculations, etc., may all be legitimate, GIVEN THE INPUT DATES.

My theory is that your group has, perhaps without realizing it, *COOKED UP a set of dates guaranteed to produce your amazing results.* It's not the experiment itself that is flawed, but the choice of the INPUT DATA.

You have shown amazing leeway in your calculations of dates. You have decided that the destruction of the First Temple occurred 167 YEARS before the date described in the _Seder Olam_. You use a birthdate for Jacob that is two YEARS after the date in the _Seder Olam_. We are not talking "fudge factors" of a few days here - we are talking CENTURIES.

By computing your "mileage" matrix again and again, each time with slight adjustments to the dates being analyzed, I believe that you have managed to develop a matrix showing the very improbable coincidences with 7's.

And the "kicker" is that, as the 7's effect in the matrix improved, it appears that you convinced yourselves that this was simply due to the fact that YOU WERE FINALLY CALCULATING THE EXACT DATES ACCURATELY. That is, you took the compelling 7's coincidences as evidence that your dates were on the right track.

I don't question your sincerity. I simply think that you have managed to delude yourselves.

THAT is why I wanted to be sure that the workers who decided what dates were important, and what these dates actually are, were NOT WORKING TOGETHER with the person(s) doing the matrix of 7's probabilities.

Your latest letter strongly indicates that the date deciders/calculators worked closely in unison with the 7's analyzers. WHO CHOSE THE KEY EVENTS? "These we have shown." WHO DID THE CALCULATIONS? "...the computer calendar programs we developed." WHO DEVELOPED THE 7's MATRIX? "I developed the matrix of weeks..."

I know you will not be pleased with the direction my theory is taking, but you have supplied the raw data I used to develop it.

You said:

>The loss of the second Temple and the Return of Israel today were
>selected too, because they were found to fit the patterns.

In black and white, you just admitted that you selected certain dates BECAUSE THEY FIT THE PATTERN.

Your 7's matrix does not prove anything about G_D, or the truth of the Biblical account. It merely shows that your group is very adept at juggling numbers. There is so much "slop" (or "fudge factors") in your calculation of dates - centuries worth! - that it is very evident that YOU ARE USING THE PATTERNS OF 7'S TO DETERMINE WHICH DATES ARE "ACCURATE," AND ARE NOT SIMPLY USING WELL-VALIDATED DATES TO CALCULATE THE 7'S MATRIX.

As regards geology and the age of the earth, you wrote:
>I am not convinced that radio metric dating is an exact science. It is
>a science which has limitations because we have limited data. I have
>read reports of dating clams and recent volcanoes to very old ages.

Sometimes when radiometric methods are used in the wrong conditions poor results are obtained, such as the old ages of recent lava flows. This has all been discussed in the scientific literature; the citations of wrong ages are published by scientists who want to help others learn how to avoid such mistakes. These citations are often quoted out-of-context by creationists who want to bash radiometric dating. BUT, they are the exception, not the rule. There are some extremely powerful techniques (such as isochron methods) that are self-checking - they contain indications of when the date calculations are compromised, whether or not any of the parent/daughter radio-isotopes have been chemically removed over the years, and much more. The same level of science that landed a man on the moon also assures us that the earth is Billions and Billions of years old.

Additionally, you wrote:

>There is no recorded history which predates 6000 years. Therefore
>theories are still theories if they cannot be tested in a laboratory.

This demonstrates a lack of knowledge about how science really works. Eyewitness testimony may have its place, but many conclusions can be made about things that are witnessed by NO ONE. If a murderer is alone with his victim, leaving no witnesses, I suppose you'd say we'd have to set him free, even if his blood, fingerprints, hair, clothes, and bits of DNA were found all over the crime scene. (In this case, the "theory" would be that John Q. Doe is the murderer, and the "repeat laboratory experiments" used to test the theory would involve analyses of fingerprints, blood, DNA, hair, etc.)

By the way, most radiogeologists DO work in a "laboratory." They test their theories in the laboratory EVERY DAY.

>What say you?
>
>Sincerely,
>Gene

What will it take to convince you that you have managed to delude yourselves?

I bet that it wouldn't be too hard to come up with a set of valid dates that produces as compelling a set of 7's coincidences as yours.

Should I even bother with the attempt? If I was successful, would you change your mind?

Sincerely, Dave Thomas

Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000
From: Eugene Faulstich <chri@ncn.net>
To: "Dave Thomas, NMSR" <det@rt66.com>
Subject: The Age of the Earth

Thanks for your prompt reply Dave. Now to your answers:

>Thanks for the reply, Gene. I'd rather hoped that your answers would have
>been more substantial, but they weren't.

Sorry to hear that a swipe of the hand erases so much information so easily.

>Before I get going, I want to mention that I'm putting our correspondence on the message board
>of the NMSR web site, accessible via www.nmsr.org/bullbord.htm, under "Bible Code" . I
>have done this because I think the public deserves to be able to see how this discussion is
>evolving. I trust that will be OK with you.

I am not disappointed that you have displayed our correspondence on the chat board. I am dismayed that you placed it under “Bible Codes.” Surely you must understand something about Bible codes, a subject that has been successfully refuted in a number of arenas. If you do not know about Bible Codes, I will introduce you to this subject.

Bible codes are a cabalistic attempt to make something out of the way letters are arranged in the Hebrew text. The use of gematria (assigning numbers to letters, and then attempting to interpret the sum of the letters) has nothing to do with this research. Gematria can be interpreted to say about anything the writer chooses to say.

I would appreciate it immensely if you would open a new subject on the chat board, and then proceed to insert all of our correspondence under that new subject. I would like the title of that subject to be:

“Sacred Sabbaths of Israel, Proof of the Past, Key to the Future.”

Since this is a public forum, it would also be wise if the reader had a printed version of our work before them. Therefore, I am attaching the "mileage chart" in a JPEG format so that they can print it out as I assume you did. I am also willing to give them free two computer programs, so that they can easily see through your free style non scholarly accusations.

>Here's why I was interested in WHO chose the dates analyzed, WHO calculated those dates, and
>WHO studied the "mileage chart" of patterns of 7's between dates.

>You see, I have a theory that explains the remarkable "mileage chart" without any need to invoke
>the supernatural (G_D); this theory is also compatible with geological evidence that supports a
>very old earth.

>Here's my hypothesis. I think it's entirely possible that the amazing patterns of 7's in your
>mileage chart may indeed represent an IMPROBABLE outcome. That is, the statistics, chi-square
>calculations, etc., may all be legitimate, GIVEN THE INPUT DATES.

>My theory is that your group has, perhaps without realizing it, *COOKED UP a set of dates
>guaranteed to produce your amazing results.* It's not the experiment itself that is flawed, but
>the choice of the INPUT DATA.

NOW YOU ARE PUTTING YOUR BRAINS AND YOUR AGENDA ON THE TABLE. Your first letter assaulted the scientists who studied and commented positively on our work. That was not entirely wise on your part, so you changed your attack on the chronology which was not produced singularly be me, but by a group of scholars. In response to this, I give you rabbinic evidence that my dates were correct and that the Seder Olam has been deliberately falsified (3 paragraphs down). Furthermore, any reputable scholar of Near East chronology would scoff at the idea of 490 years between the two temple destructions.

Your theories can be examined by our audience to see if our dates are “cooked up.” All that is necessary is for them to download our web pages and request the computer programs and see for themselves.

www.mashiach6000.org

www.ncn.net/~chri

>You have shown amazing leeway in your calculations of dates. You have decided that the
>destruction of the First Temple occurred 167 YEARS before the date described in the _Seder
>Olam_. You use a birth date for Jacob that is two YEARS after the date in the _Seder Olam_.
>We are not talking "fudge factors" of a few days here - we are talking CENTURIES.

The Seder Olam assigns only 490 years between the two Temple destructions. Jewish rabbis have put this question to deliberation, and have concluded that the writer of the Seder Olam deliberately reduced this period by 167 years to keep a divine mandate of Daniel “Keep this book secret”.
“There seems to be left, as yet unexplored, only one avenue of approach to the vexing problem confronting us. It seems possible that our Sages, for some unknown reason, “covered up” a certain historic period and purposely eliminated and suppressed all records and other material pertaining thereto. If so, what might have been their compelling reason for so unusual a procedure? Nothing short of a Divine command could have prompted our Chazal, those saintly "men of truth," to leave out completely from our annals a period of at least 165 years and to correct all data and historic tables in such a fashion that the subsequent chronological gap could escape notice for countless generations, and remain known only to a few initiates who were duty-bound to keep the secret to themselves." (Comparative Jewish Chronology? by Rav Shimon Schwab)

>What will it take to convince you that you have managed to delude yourselves?

>I bet that it wouldn't be too hard to come up with a set of valid dates that produces as
>compelling a set of 7's coincidences as yours.

>Should I even bother with the attempt? If I was successful, would you change your mind?

SOUNDS LIKE A REASONABLE REQUEST ON YOUR PART. SURE, I CHALLENGE YOU TO FIND

1). A PREDICTION MADE BEFORE HAND WHICH SUGGESTS THAT THE CHRONOLOGY OF A SPECIFIC NATION WAS CONTROLLED BY G-D AS THE FOLLOWING PREDICTION BY MOSES.
Remember the days of old, consider the years of many generations; ask your father, and he will show you; your elders, and they will tell you: When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he set apart the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the people of Israel: For the Lord's portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance (Det. 32:7-9)

2). AND THEN FIND IT FOLLOWED BY A SET OF TESTABLE HISTORICAL DATES WHICH PROVE IT.
I have from the beginning declared it to you; before it came to pass I announced it to you; lest you should say, My idol has done them, and my carved image, and my molten image, has commanded them: You have heard, now see all this; and will you not declare it? (Isaiah 48:5-6a)

THE BALL IS IN YOUR COURT.

Gene

Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000
From: "Dave Thomas, NMSR" <det@rt66.com>
To:Eugene Faulstich <chri@ncn.net>
Subject: The Age of the Earth

>Thanks for your prompt reply Dave. Now to your answers:
>
>>Thanks for the reply, Gene. I'd rather hoped that your answers would have
>>been more substantial, but they weren't.
>
>Sorry to hear that a swipe of the hand erases so much information so easily.

I'm not sure what you mean here. Are you referring to your 'swiping away' of any serious discussion of radiometric dating techniques? You have been avoiding this part of the discussion most curiously.

>
>>Before I get going, I want to mention that I'm putting our correspondence on the message board of the NMSR
>>web site, accessible via www.nmsr.org/bullbord.htm, under "Bible Code" . I have done this because I
>>think the public deserves to be able to see how this discussion is evolving. I trust that will be OK with
>>you.
>
>I am not disappointed that you have displayed our correspondence on the chat board. I am dismayed that you
>placed it under “Bible Codes.” Surely you must understand something about Bible codes, a subject that has
>been successfully refuted in a number of arenas. If you do not know about Bible Codes, I will introduce you
>to this subject.
>
>Bible codes are a cabalistic attempt to make something out of the way letters are arranged in the Hebrew
>text. The use of gematria (assigning numbers to letters, and then attempting to interpret the sum of the
>letters) has nothing to do with this research. Gematria can be interpreted to say about anything the writer
>chooses to say.
>
>I would appreciate it immensely if you would open a new subject on the chat board, and then proceed to insert
>all of our correspondence under that new subject. I would like the title of that subject to be:
>
>“Sacred Sabbaths of Israel, Proof of the Past, Key to the Future.”

I have renamed the topic as you suggested. However, I see a LOT of similarities with your work and the Bible Code, and I don't think it was unreasonable to put your letters in that slot. Thanks for "introducing" me to the Bible Codes, but I have studied these in some detail, and have published several articles about the Codes in the Skeptical Inquirer. Consult the NMSR Bible Code page for links to these articles and other resources. By the way, they involve more than just 'gematria' - for example, ELS's (Equidistant Letter Sequences).

>
>Since this is a public forum, it would also be wise if the reader had a printed version of our work before
>them. Therefore, I am attaching the "mileage chart" in a JPEG format so that they can print it out as I
>assume you did. I am also willing to give them free two computer programs, so that they can easily see
>through your free style non scholarly accusations.

I suggest that anyone who wants your programs can email you for them, using your email address above. The chart is already available on your websites, mentioned above, so I see no need to also post them on the NMSR website.

>
>>Here's why I was interested in WHO chose the dates analyzed, WHO calculated those dates,
>>and WHO studied the>>"mileage chart" of patterns of 7's between dates.
>>
>>You see, I have a theory that explains the remarkable "mileage chart" without any need to invoke the
>>supernatural (G_D); this theory is also compatible with geological evidence that supports a very old earth.
>>
>>Here's my hypothesis. I think it's entirely possible that the amazing patterns of 7's in your mileage chart
>>may indeed represent an IMPROBABLE outcome. That is, the statistics, chi-square calculations, etc., may all
>>be legitimate, GIVEN THE INPUT DATES.
>>
>>My theory is that your group has, perhaps without realizing it, *COOKED UP a set of dates guaranteed to
>>produce your amazing results.* It's not the experiment itself that is flawed, but the choice of the INPUT
>DATA.
>>

>NOW YOU ARE PUTTING YOUR BRAINS AND YOUR AGENDA ON THE TABLE.
>Your first letter assaulted the scientists who
>studied and commented positively on our work. That was not entirely wise on your part, so you changed your
>attack on the chronology which was not produced singularly be me, but by a group of scholars. In response to
>this, I give you rabbinic evidence that my dates were correct and that the Seder Olam has been deliberately
>falsified (3 paragraphs down). Furthermore, any reputable scholar of Near East chronology would scoff at the
>idea of 490 years between the two temple destructions.

I think you'd better read my first letter again. I did NOT "assault" your scientists, I commented that the work was unintelligible. Whoever posted the equations on that web site formatted them so poorly that they couldn't be read. I did NOT address MATH problems, but rather TYPE-SETTING problems.

You say that the "chronology which was not produced singularly be me, but by a group of scholars."
WHO ARE THESE SCHOLARS??? WERE YOU AND/OR OTHER MEMBERS OF YOUR GROUP AMONG THESE SCHOLARS???

>
>Your theories can be examined by our audience to see if our dates are “cooked up.” All that is necessary is
>for them to download our web pages and request the computer programs and see for themselves.
>
>www.mashiach6000.org
>
>www.ncn.net?~chri
>
>>You have shown amazing leeway in your calculations of dates. You have decided that the destruction of the
>>First Temple occurred 167 YEARS before the date described in the _Seder Olam_. You use a birth date for
>>Jacob that is two YEARS after the date in the _Seder Olam_. We are not talking "fudge factors" of a few >>days here - we are talking CENTURIES.
>
>The Seder Olam assigns only 490 years between the two Temple destructions. Jewish rabbis have put this
>question to deliberation, and have concluded that the writer of the Seder Olam deliberately reduced this
>period by 167 years to keep a divine mandate of Daniel “Keep this book secret”.

>“There seems to be left, as yet unexplored, only one avenue of approach to the vexing problem confronting us.
>It seems possible that our Sages, for some unknown reason, “covered up” a certain historic period and
>purposely eliminated and suppressed all records and other material pertaining thereto. If so, what might have
>been their compelling reason for so unusual a procedure? Nothing short of a Divine command could have
>prompted our Chazal, those saintly "men of truth," to leave out completely from our annals a period of at
>least 165 years and to correct all data and historic tables in such a fashion that the subsequent
>chronological gap could escape notice for countless generations, and remain known only to a few initiates who
>were duty-bound to keep the secret to themselves." (Comparative Jewish Chronology? by Rav Shimon Schwab)

YOU ARE NOT RESPONDING TO MY PREVIOUS LETTER. In fact, it appears that you decided to ignore the most important part of that letter.

Let me ask again. WHICH CAME FIRST, THE LIST OF KEY DATES OR THE 7'S MATRIX?

If, as you admitted in a previous letter, the results of ongoing 7's matrix were used to "ratify" any or all of the selected dates, then your work is fatally flawed. The ONLY proper way to do the experiment you describe is for an independent group of scholars to arrive at a set of "key dates" BEFORE ANY 7'S MATRIX COMPUTATIONS ARE EVEN BEGUN. Then, if this set of dates produces an improbable number of 7's in a matrix of week differences, you might have a case for arguing that this represents a supernatural "message" in the Torah.

BUT, IF ANY OF THE KEY DATES WERE REVISED AS A RESULT OF WORK ON THE 7'S MATRIX, THE WHOLE PROJECT BECOMES WORTHLESS. You are simply juggling the inputs to get the desired answer.

So I ask again, WHICH CAME FIRST, THE LIST OF KEY DATES OR THE 7'S MATRIX?

>
>>What will it take to convince you that you have managed to delude yourselves?
>>
>>I bet that it wouldn't be too hard to come up with a set of valid dates that produces as compelling a set of
>>7's coincidences as yours.
>>
>>Should I even bother with the attempt? If I was successful, would you change your mind?
>
>SOUNDS LIKE A REASONABLE REQUEST ON YOUR PART. SURE, I CHALLENGE YOU TO FIND
>
>1). A PREDICTION MADE BEFORE HAND WHICH SUGGESTS THAT THE CHRONOLOGY OF A
>SPECIFIC NATION WAS CONTROLLED BY
>G-D AS THE FOLLOWING PREDICTION BY MOSES.
>Remember the days of old, consider the years of many generations; ask your father,
>and he will show you; your
>elders, and they will tell you: When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he set
>apart the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the people of Israel: For
>the Lord's portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance: (Det. 32:7-9)
>
>2). AND THEN FIND IT FOLLOWED BY A SET OF TESTABLE HISTORICAL DATES WHICH PROVE IT.
>I have from the beginning declared it to you; before it came to pass I announced it to you; lest you should
>say, My idol has done them, and my carved image, and my molten image, has commanded them: You have
>heard, now see all this; and will you not declare it? (Isaiah 48:5-6a)
>
>THE BALL IS IN YOUR COURT.
>
>Gene

Your challenge is not acceptable as stated. Why should I have to look around for predictions about the chronologies of specific nations?

YOU claim that you have arrived at a set of key dates, and that the differences between these dates show a remarkable number of 7's that cannot be explained by chance alone.

All I propose to do is to select 13 key dates from history, and produce an equally compelling matrix of 7's.

Should I even bother with the attempt? If I was successful, would you change your mind?

Sincerely, Dave

Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000
From: Eugene Faulstich <chri@ncn.net>
To: "Dave Thomas, NMSR" <det@rt66.com>
Subject: The Age of the Earth


Thanks again for your prompt reply Dave.
Now to your answers:

DT>I have renamed the topic as you suggested.

Thank you very much Dave.

DT>I suggest that anyone who wants your programs can email you for them, using
DT>your email address above. The chart is already available on your websites,
DT>mentioned above, so I see no need to also post them on the NMSR website.

This chart would only occupy the space of about one paragraph. I understand your reluctance to display this chart because its appearance would damage your case dramatically. It is a simple tool which scientifically proves the actions of G-d in human history.

DT>You say that the "chronology which was not produced singularly be me, but by a group of DT
DT>scholars." WHO ARE THESE SCHOLARS??? WERE YOU AND/OR OTHER MEMBERS OF YOUR
DT>GROUP AMONG THESE SCHOLARS???

I produced the original chronological framework in 1975, long before computers. The patterns of weeks was not discovered until the early 1980’s when computers were first used. The basic chronology did not change one year. I wrote a work book in 1975 which had a Biblical chronological framework. The final chronology did not change one year. If you like, I can send you a copy of the book, or I can scan a page and send it to you. The chronology proved to be accurate by computer programs developed by Mark Ness after he joined me in 1981. At that time the patterns of weeks were obvious without changing one year in the chronology.

The name of the two men who worked with me at the Chronology-History Research Institute were:

Oliver Blosser, PhD, University of Wisconsin
Mark Ness, B.S. Computers, University of Minnesota

DT>YOU ARE NOT RESPONDING TO MY PREVIOUS LETTER. In fact, it appears that you
DT>decided to ignore the most important part of that letter.

Your radio metric dating questions have been answered by no small number of men who call themselves “creation scientists.” I am not qualified in this area. I was president of Bible Science Association for 8 years, and from my exposure to them, I am convinced that there are good reasons to reject this dating because of the flawed results. Some of which include dating a living clam to several million years old. Furthermore, one cannot project a scientific subject outside the realm of testability into the unknown. Radio metric dating cannot be tested to a previous period of millions of years ago without assuming uniform actions within the material and without assuming a certain amount of chemical in the original matter. The same argument applies to our work. We can examine the actions of G-d in history, but to project those actions into the future, or prior to any recorded history would be no more than speculation. That is why I reject radio metric dating as non scientific speculation.

DT>Let me ask again. WHICH CAME FIRST, THE LIST OF KEY DATES OR THE 7'S MATRIX?

The answer to this question was just given.

DT>If, as you admitted in a previous letter, the results of ongoing 7's matrix were used to "ratify"
DT>any or all of the selected dates, then your work is fatally flawed. The ONLY proper way to do
DT>the experiment you describe is for an independent group of scholars to arrive at a set of "key
DT>dates" BEFORE ANY 7'S MATRIX COMPUTATIONS ARE EVEN BEGUN. Then, if this set of dates
DT>produces an improbable number of 7's in a matrix of week differences, you might have a case
DT>for arguing that this represents a supernatural "message" in the Torah.

DT>BUT, IF ANY OF THE KEY DATES WERE REVISED AS A RESULT OF WORK ON THE 7'S MATRIX,
DT>THE WHOLE PROJECT BECOMES WORTHLESS. You are simply juggling the nputs to get the
DT>desired answer.

DT>So I ask again, WHICH CAME FIRST, THE LIST OF KEY DATES OR THE 7'S MATRIX?

Excuse me sir, I have never implied that the patterns were used to establish the dates. Your accusations are unjustified. The chronology was formed several years before the computer programs were introduced. See the above history of the research.

DT>>What will it take to convince you that you have managed to delude yourselves? I bet that it
DT>>wouldn't be too hard to come up with a set of valid dates that produces as compelling a set
DT>>of coincidences as yours.
>>
DT>>Should I even bother with the attempt? If I was successful, would you
DT>>change your mind?
>
EF>SOUNDS LIKE A REASONABLE REQUEST ON YOUR PART. SURE, I CHALLENGE YOU TO FIND
>
EF>1). A PREDICTION MADE BEFORE HAND WHICH SUGGESTS THAT THE CHRONOLOGY OF A
EF>SPECIFIC NATION WAS CONTROLLED BY
EF>G-D AS THE FOLLOWING PREDICTION BY MOSES.
EF>Remember the days of old, consider the years of many generations; ask your father, and he will
EF>show you; your elders, and they will tell you: When the Most High divided to the nations their
EF>inheritance, when he set apart the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to
EF>the number of the people of Israel: For the Lord's portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his
EF>inheritance: (Det. 32:7-9)
>
EF>2). AND THEN FIND IT FOLLOWED BY A SET OF TESTABLE HISTORICAL DATES WHICH PROVE
EF>IT.
EF>I have from the beginning declared it to you; before it came to pass I announced it to you; lest
EF>you should say, My idol has done them, and my carved image, and my molten image, has
EF>commanded them: You have heard, now see all this; and will you not declare it? (Isaiah
EF>48:5-6a)

EF>THE BALL IS IN YOUR COURT.
>
EF>Gene

DT>Your challenge is not acceptable as stated. Why should I have to look around for predictions
DT>about the chronologies of specific nations?

DT>YOU claim that you have arrived at a set of key dates, and that the differences between these
DT>dates show a remarkable number of 7's that cannot be explained by chance alone.

DT>All I propose to do is to select 13 key dates from history, and produce an equally compelling
DT>matrix of 7's.

DT>Should I even bother with the attempt? If I was successful, would you change your mind?

DT>Sincerely, Dave

Dave, I have written articles and books on Egyptian, Babylonian, and Assyrian chronology. I have studied Jewish chronology during the Diaspora. I have also studied Christian church history and American history. I have looked for patterns in all of them without success.

Since you write G-d’s name with a hyphenation, this tells me you are Jewish. If you are Jewish, you should also fear G-d (Ha-Shem). If what I am telling you is true, then you might be wise to defend G-d rather than His opponent. This is not science, it is just common sense.

You have wisely denied my challenge.

Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000
From: "Dave Thomas, NMSR" <det@rt66.com>
To:Eugene Faulstich <chri@ncn.net>
Subject: The Age of the Earth

At 10:50 AM 6/23/00 +0100, you wrote:

EF>Thanks again for your prompt reply Dave.
EF>Now to your answers:

DT>I have renamed the topic as you suggested.

EF>Thank you very much Dave.

DT>I suggest that anyone who wants your programs can email you
DT>for them, using your email address above.
DT> The chart is already available on your websites,
DT>mentioned above, so I see no need to also post them on the NMSR website.


EF>This chart would only occupy the space of about one paragraph.
EF>I understand your reluctance to display this chart because its
EF>appearance would damage your case dramatically. It is a simple
EF>tool which scientifically proves the actions of G-d in human history.

Your chart takes up 72,502 bytes. A dense page of text, over 60 lines by 80 characters per line,
takes only 4,800 bytes. Your chart would occupy the space of 15 DENSELY PACKED PAGES, not a "paragraph" as you suggest. My reluctance to post your chart has everything to do with bandwidth, and nothing to do with fears that it would "damage my case dramatically." If THAT were the case, then why would I be including the links to your web pages, WHERE ANYONE CAN VIEW YOUR CHART, in these letters? Hmm?

To make the point, here are the websites where YOUR CHART can be viewed, for reference:

mashiach6000.org (see mashiach6000.org/images/pic1.jpg for the image itself, and
see mashiach6000.org/intervention.htm for the image on the page.)

www.ncn.net/~chri (see www.ncn.net/~chri/html/paternweek.html )

Happy now?

DT>You say that the "chronology which was not produced singularly
DT>be me, but by a group of scholars." WHO ARE THESE SCHOLARS???
DT>WERE YOU AND/OR OTHER MEMBERS OF YOUR GROUP AMONG THESE SCHOLARS???

EF>I produced the original chronological framework in 1975, long before
EF>computers. The patterns of weeks was not discovered until the early
EF>1980’s when computers were first used. The basic chronology did not
EF>change one year. I wrote a work book in 1975 which had a Biblical
EF>chronological framework. The final chronology did not change one
EF>year. If you like, I can send you a copy of the book, or I can
EF>scan a page and send it to you. The chronology proved to be accurate
EF>by computer programs developed by Mark Ness after he joined me in 1981.
EF>At that time the patterns of weeks were obvious without changing one
EF>year in the chronology.

It's good that you didn't tweak the years of your original chronology.
However, your chart, being differences of weeks between dates, depends
critically on the DAYS involved, not simply the years. Keeping the years
as originally derived would still leave PLENTY of wiggle room in the
adjustments of DAYS. It's interesting that "The final chronology did not change one
year." The real question is,

CAN YOU SAY TRUTHFULLY THAT "The final chronology did not change one DAY" ?

If you cannot, then your work is meaningless.

EF>The name of the two men who worked with me at the Chronology-History
EF>Research Institute were:

EF>Oliver Blosser, PhD, University of Wisconsin
EF>Mark Ness, B.S. Computers, University of Minnesota

Which branch of the University of Wisconsin is home to Prof. Oliver Blosser?
I have looked without success for him at the web sites of the U. of Wisconsin
branches at Madison, Eau Claire, La Crosse, Parkside, Stevens Point, Stout,
Oshkosh, Platville, Milwaukee, Riverfalls, and Whitewater.

So, which branch of the U. of Wisconsin, and is he still working there?

EF>Your radio metric dating questions have been answered by no small number
EF>of men who call themselves “creation scientists.” I am not qualified in
EF>this area. I was president of Bible Science Association for 8 years,
EF>and from my exposure to them, I am convinced that there are good
EF>reasons to reject this dating because of the flawed results. Some of
EF>which include dating a living clam to several million years old.
EF>Furthermore, one cannot project a scientific subject outside the realm
EF>of testability into the unknown.

I have already described how science "tests into the unknown" (i.e. into
areas for which we have no human testimony.) You are apparently afraid to
respond to the meat of this discussion. I am shocked to think that you
appear perfectly willing to let a murderer who is implicated by blood, hair,
fingerprints, and DNA evidence go scot free simply because there were no
"witnesses" to record the event for posterity.

EF>Radio metric dating cannot be tested
EF>to a previous period of millions of years ago without assuming uniform
EF>actions within the material and without assuming a certain amount of
EF>chemical in the original matter.

This comment betrays your ignorance of the advances in radiometric dating.
As I warned you previously, don't listen to your creationist friends regarding
radio-dating. They have an agenda which precludes their addressing the real
science issues. You parrot the creationist lie that "Radio metric dating cannot be tested
...without assuming a certain amount of chemical in the original matter." This, of course,
is not true. The ISOCHRON METHOD, which I have mentioned repeatedly to you,
PERMITS THE MEASUREMENT OF RELATIVE AMOUNTS OF CHEMICALS IN THE ORIGINAL MATTER.

Geologists don't need to "assume" how much of the daughter isotope was present in the
rock when it hardened from a molten state. THEY CAN CALCULATE THE AMOUNT PRECISELY.

It's obvious that you are ignorant of the realities of radiometric dating.
I suggest you can remedy this by simply reading Dalrymple's book _The Age of the Earth_.
Unless you are able to get past creationist lies about radio-dating, I see no point
in discussing this particular topic further with you.

DT>BUT, IF ANY OF THE KEY DATES WERE REVISED AS A RESULT OF WORK ON THE 7'S
DT>MATRIX, THE WHOLE PROJECT BECOMES WORTHLESS. You are simply juggling the
DT>inputs to get the desired answer.

DT>So I ask again, WHICH CAME FIRST, THE LIST OF KEY DATES OR THE 7'S MATRIX?

EF>Excuse me sir, I have never implied that the patterns were used to establish
EF>the dates. Your accusations are unjustified. The chronology was formed
EF>several years before the computer programs were introduced. See the above
EF>history of the research.

Excuse me, sir, but you certainly DID imply the patterns were used to establish the dates.

On June 21, 2000, you wrote
"The loss of the second Temple and the Return of Israel today were
selected too, because they were found to fit the patterns."

Perhaps you'd care to explain your contradictory statements.


DT>>What will it take to convince you that you have managed to delude
DT>>yourselves? I bet that it wouldn't be too hard to come up with a
DT>>set of valid dates that produces as compelling a set of 7's coincidences
DT>>as yours.

DT>>Should I even bother with the attempt? If I was successful, would you
DT>>change your mind?

EF>SOUNDS LIKE A REASONABLE REQUEST ON YOUR PART. SURE, I CHALLENGE YOU TO FIND

EF>1). A PREDICTION MADE BEFORE HAND WHICH SUGGESTS THAT THE CHRONOLOGY OF A
EF>SPECIFIC NATION WAS CONTROLLED BY G-D AS THE FOLLOWING PREDICTION BY MOSES.
EF>Remember the days of old, consider the years of many generations; ask your
EF>father, and he will show you; your elders, and they will tell you: When the
EF>Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he set apart the
EF>sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of
EF>the people of Israel: For the Lord's portion is his people; Jacob is the
EF>lot of his inheritance: (Det. 32:7-9)

EF>2). AND THEN FIND IT FOLLOWED BY A SET OF TESTABLE HISTORICAL DATES WHICH PROVE IT.
EF>I have from the beginning declared it to you; before it came to pass I announced
EF>it to you; lest you should say, My idol has done them, and my carved image, and
EF>my molten image, has commanded them: You have heard, now see all this; and will
EF>you not declare it? (Isaiah 48:5-6a)
EF>THE BALL IS IN YOUR COURT.


DT>Your challenge is not acceptable as stated. Why should I have
DT>to look around for predictions about the chronologies of specific nations?

DT>YOU claim that you have arrived at a set of key dates, and that the
DT>differences between these dates show a remarkable number of 7's that
DT>cannot be explained by chance alone.

DT>All I propose to do is to select 13 key dates from history, and produce
DT>an equally compelling matrix of 7's.

DT>Should I even bother with the attempt? If I was successful,
DT>would you change your mind?

DT>Sincerely, Dave

EF>Dave, I have written articles and books on Egyptian, Babylonian,
EF>and Assyrian chronology. I have studied Jewish chronology during
EF>the Diaspora. I have also studied Christian church history and
EF>American history. I have looked for patterns in all of them without success.

EF>Since you write G-d’s name with a hyphenation, this tells me you are
EF>Jewish. If you are Jewish, you should also fear G-d (Ha-Shem). If
EF>what I am telling you is true, then you might be wise to defend G-d
EF>rather than His opponent. This is not science, it is just common sense.

EF>You have wisely denied my challenge.

Gene, you are a real artist at avoiding my questions.

I did not ask if YOU have looked for curious patterns in other chronologies.

I asked a very simple question.

"SHOULD I EVEN BOTHER WITH THE ATTEMPT?
IF I WAS SUCCESSFUL, WOULD YOU CHANGE YOUR MIND?"

Since your "challenge" would have involved lots of pointless looking for predictions
of chronologies of various nations, and was NOT AT ALL at what I proposed, which
was simply "to select 13 key dates from history, and produce an equally compelling
matrix of 7's", I think we are in agreement that I was "wise" to deny your challenge
as stated.

I'll be away on travel a few days, so it'll be a while before I can reply to your
next letter, if there is one.

Sincerely, Dave Thomas

Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000
From: Eugene Faulstich <chri@ncn.net>
To: "Dave Thomas, NMSR" <det@rt66.com>
Subject: The Age of the Earth

Thanks again David, for your prompt response.

I hope your are not away from your desk for very long. Now to answer
your questions.

DT>Which branch of the University of Wisconsin is home to Prof. Oliver
DT>Blosser? I have looked without success for him at the web sites of the
DT>U. of Wisconsin branches at Madison, Eau Claire, La Crosse, Parkside,
DT>Stevens Point, Stout,
DT>Oshkosh, Platville, Milwaukee, Riverfalls, and Whitewater. So, which
DT>branch of the U. of Wisconsin, and is he still working there?

I did not imply that these two men were teachers at the universities,
simply that they received their degrees from these institutions. Our
research ended in about 1988. At that time Mark Ness joined the
military, and eventually became an Arabic translator in the Gulf War.
He now is a computer programmer for Lutheran Brotherhood Insurance in
Minneapolis. Dr. Blosser went to teach world religions at the
University of Wisconsin, Oshkosh. He is now a pastor of a church in
Minnesota.

>I have already described how science "tests into the unknown" (i.e. into
>areas for which we have no human testimony.) You are apparently afraid
>to respond to the meat of this discussion. I am shocked to think that
>you appear perfectly willing to let a murderer who is implicated by
>blood, hair, fingerprints, and DNA evidence go scot free simply because
>there were no "witnesses" to record the event for posterity.

I don't recall saying anything of the sort. This is what I actually
said. "Radio metric dating cannot be tested to a previous period of
millions of years ago without assuming uniform actions within the
material and without assuming a certain amount of chemical in the
original matter."

Let me give you four examples of "pseudo-scientific" dating assumptions.

1) It is commonly accepted that the universe is some 14-18 billion
years old. Astronomers had theories about the red shift which was
supposed to support these ages. But wait! Three Iowa State University
professors of astrophysics insist that the universe may be a mere 7
billion years old by the actions of the pulsating stars (Des Moines
Sunday Register, August 2, 1987).
2). Dinosaurs were supposed to have become extinct some 65 million
years ago. But a graveyard of organic dinosaur bones have been found in
Colville, Alaska! Organic material does not last 65 million years.
What's more, one sample of it has been carbon dated @ 9,890 years old,
while another sample @ 16,120 years old. A far cry from 65,000,000
years!
3). The first lunar landing expected to find deep layers of dust, based
on the age of the universe and the knowledge of how much dust is known
to collect there each year. But the large pads which appeared on the
feet of the lunar landing module were not necessary! There was not
enough dust to plant the flag in the ground!
4). Radio metric dating seems to have one purpose, that is to shore up
a defunct 19th century ìtheory of evolution.î In doing so, it can
ìsave faceî for teachers. That's not science, that's deception.
Popular scholars like Steven J. Gould of Harvard flatly reject gradual
evolution because of the lack of evidence. If evolution happened, he
would suggest punctuated speciation, i.e., a reptile laid an egg and it
hatched into a bird, which was promptly fed bugs by the loving reptile
mother!

DT>Excuse me, sir, but you certainly DID imply the patterns were used to
DT>establish the dates. On June 21, 2000, you wrote "The loss of the
DT>second Temple and the Return of Israel today were selected too, because
DT>they were found to fit the patterns." Perhaps you'd care to explain
DT>your contradictory statements.

A good scientist does not refuse to turn over a stone because of his
certainty that there are no bugs under it. He does not proceed with
blind bias; he keeps an open mind and builds on the facts at hand. Once
patterns were obvious in Jewish history, and the Bible verses were found
which guaranteed this kind of evidence, I was naturally compelled to
study all of the dates in Jewish history. This is not a contradiction,
it is good science. If there were no patterns, I would not have lost
anything. Modern scientific methods compel men to follow the popular
views because deviation from those views means you are out of fellowship
with the rest of science.

EF>I CHALLENGE YOU TO FIND
EF>1). A PREDICTION MADE BEFORE HAND WHICH SUGGESTS THAT THE CHRONOLOGY OF
EF>A SPECIFIC NATION WAS CONTROLLED BY G-D AS THE FOLLOWING PREDICTION BY
EF>MOSES.
EF>
EF>2). AND THEN FIND IT FOLLOWED BY A SET OF HISTORICAL DATES WHICH PROVE
EF>IT.

DT>Your challenge is not acceptable as stated.
DT>Why should I have to look around for predictions about the chronologies
DT>of specific nations?

O.K., lets ignore the *prior predictions* aspect of the challenge so it
will be easy for you.

DT>I bet that it wouldn't be too hard to come up with a set of valid dates
DT>that produces as compelling a set of 7's coincidences as yours... [My
DT>proposal] was simply "to select 13 key dates from history, and produce
DT>an equally compelling matrix of 7's."

The bets on. In order to demonstrate to the reader what an 'equally
compelling matrix of 7's are, he or she will have to see a thumbnail
sketch of our matrix of 7's. Since the matrix graphic consumes too much
space, I will list the dates and the 7's. The first 7 dates I will
reference from the Bible, and convert them to day numbers. The dates
are given in the lunar calendar, so I could not have 'tweaked' them.
The day numbers can be subtracted to find the number of days are between
them. Divide this day difference by 7 to convert them to weeks. The
first 7 dates are taken directly from the Bible. (Actually 8 from the
Bible; the exact date of the burning bush of Moses is calculated through
the use of the Bible and made absolute through Egyptian chronology. The
details can be found in our web page). A list of these 7 dates, their
references, and their day numbers appear below:

0) Tishri 22, (Oct. 9, 1462 BCE) The Burning Bush of Moses (Ex.
2:23-3:2, Egyptian Phaopi 30) #927,548
1) ìIn the 1st month, on the evening of the 14th day is the Passoverî
(Lev. 23:5) #927,717
2) ìOn the 3rd new moon, on the same day they left Egypt, they came to
Sinai, i.e., the 15th (Ex. 19:1) # 927,777
3) ìMake yourselves ready for the third day, for on that day I will
return, i.e., the 17th (Ex. 19:11) # 927,779
4) ìAnd Moses remained on the mountain for 40 days, i.e. till the 4th
mo. day 28 (Ex. 24:18)
and one week later, Moses returned to the mountain again, i.e. 5th mo.,
7th day #927,828
5) ìAnd in the 1st month, the 2nd year, the 1st day, the Tabernacle was
erectedî (Ex. 40:17). # 928,087
6) ìAnd Aaron died there, in the 40th year on the 1st day of the 5th
monthî (Nu. 33:38) # 942,087
7) ìAnd on the 40th yr., on the 1st day, of the 11th month, Moses spokeî
(Dt. 1:3) #942,263

Once these patterns were observed, a text of Isaiah was found which
predicted that Israel's presence in the Holy land would be a sign.
ìBehold, I and the children whom the Lord has given me are for signs and
for wonders in Israel from the Lord of hosts, who dwells in mount Zion:î
(8:18). This, along with the other predictions previously cited,
prompted me to study all the dates of the nation Israel to look for
other harmonies. The next six dates listed are extra Biblical dates
which are accepted by Jews as significant historical events which were
predicted by Moses.

8) Nisan 15 (April 6, CE 30) Before Passover Hall of Hewn Stones lost
(Gen. 49:10, Abodah Zara 8b) # 927,779 [DT - THIS APPARENTLY SHOULD BE DAY # 1471938???]
9) Sivan 6 (May 25, CE 30) Pentecost, Hall of Hewn Stones lost (Gen.
49:10, Abodah Zara 8b) #1,471,987
10) Ab 9, (Aug. 2, CE 70) The Second Temple was destroyed (Josephus:
Wars VI,iv, Dt. 28:63) # 1,486,666
11) Elul 15, (Sept. 6, CE 70) The People sold into Egypt (Josephus: Wars
VI,ix, Dt. 28:68) # 1,486,702
12) Tishri 22 (Oct. 18, 1946) Feast of Tabernacles, 10 Germans hung
@Nuremburg (Dt. 30:7) # 2,171,938
13) Sivan 6 (May 14, 1948) Israeli Declaration of Independence (Dt.
30:1-6) # 2,172,512

Now these dates will be compared to show the harmonious patterns of
sevens.

The Burning Bush of Moses & 8 significant dates following it (# 0 above)

24 Wks Nisan 14 (March 26, 1461 BCE) The Exodus (#1 above)
33 Wks Sivan 17 (May 28, 1461 BCE) The Ten Commandments (#3 above)
40 Wks Ab 7 (July 16, 1461 BCE) Moses intercedes for Israel (#4 above)
77 Wks Abib 1 (April 1, 1461 BCE) The first house of God dedicated(#5
above).
2077 Wks Ab 1 (July 29, 1422 BCE) Aaron died (#6 above)
77,770 Wks Nisan 15 (April 6, CE 30) Before Passover of CE 30 (#8
above)
77,777 Wks Sivan 6 (May 25, CE 30) Pentecost, Hall of Hewn Stones lost
(#9 above)
177,770 Wks Tishri 22 (Oct. 18, 1946) Feast of Tabernacles, 10 Germans
hung (#12 above)

The Exodus Passover & 3 significant dates forward
77,746 Wks Passover of CE 30 (#8 above)
77,753 Wks Pentecost of CE 30 (#9 above)
177,746 Wks 10 Germans were hung.(#12 above)

The Ten Commandments & 5 significant dates forward
7 Wks Moses intercedes for Israel after their apostasy (#4 above)
44 Wks Moses dedicated the Tabernacle (#5 above).
77,737 Wks Passover of CE 30 (#8 above)
77,744 Wks Pentecost of CE 30 (#9 above)
177,737 Wks 10 Germans were hung on Succot of 1946 (#12 above).

Moses Intercedes For Israel & 4 significant dates forward
37 Wks Tabernacle Dedication (#5 above)
77,730 Wks Passover of CE 30 (#8 above)
77,737 Wks Pentecost of CE 30 (#9 above)
177,730 Wks 10 Germans were hung in 1946 (#12 above)

The Tabernacle Dedication & 4 significant dates forward
2000 Wks Aaron, its first high priest died (#6 above)
77,700 Wks Pentecost of CE 30 (#9 above)
79,797 Wks Second Temple was destroyed (#10 above)
177,775 Wks Declaration of Independence of Israel on May 14, 1948 (#13
above)

Aaron's Death & 2 significant dates forward
75,700 Wks Pentecost of CE 30 (#9 above)
77,797 Wks Second Temple was destroyed (#10 above)

Deuteronomy Read & 2 significant dates forward
77,772 Wks Second Temple Destruction (#10 above)
77,777 Wks People were sold to Egypt by the Romans (#11 above)

Passover of CE 30 & 2 significant dates looking forward
7 Wks Pentecost of CE 30 (#9 above)
100,000 Wks 10 Germans were hung on Succot of 1946 (#12 above)

Pentecost of CE 30 & 1 significant date forward
99,993 Wks 10 Germans were hung on Succot of 1946

The patterns and the probabilities which you claim to be able to
duplicate follow:

1). Each digit (0-9) should appear as 10% of any random total, but 7's
appear 35 %
2). Digits are less likely to appear in pairs, triples, quadruples, or
quintuples.
The following pairs, triples, quadruples, or quintuples appear with
probabilities

1 pair of 3's @ 1/100 = 10-2
2 pairs of 4's @ 1/100 = 10-4
1 pair of 6's @ 1/100 = 10-2
16 pairs of 7's @ 1/100 = 10-32
3 triples of 0's @ 1/1000 = 10-9
1 triple of 6's @ 1/1000 = 10-3
9 triples of 7's @ 1/1000 = 10-27
8 quadruples of 7's @ 1/10,000 = 10-32
1 quadruple of 9's @ 1/10,000 = 10-4
1 quintuple of 0's @ 1/100,000 = 10-5
2 quintuples of 7's @ 1/100,000 = 10-10
Total probability = 10-130

DT>CAN YOU SAY TRUTHFULLY THAT "The final chronology did not change one
DT>DAY" ?
DT>If you cannot, then your work is meaningless.

After seeing the above data, what do you think?

NOW IT IS UP TO YOU TO DUPLICATE OUR MATRIX OF 7'S
USING SOME OTHER NATIONAL HISTORICAL RECORD.

DT>I'll be away on travel a few days, so it'll be a while before I can
DT>reply to your next letter, if there is one.

I sure hope you don't run away Dave, I am going to learn from this. I
hope you do too.
Sincerely, Gene

Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2000
From: Eugene Faulstich <chri@ncn.net>
To: "Dave Thomas, NMSR" <det@rt66.com>
Subject: The Age of the Earth

Hi Dave,

Just wondering if you have returned to work as yet.

Dave, is there some way that our discussion can be easily located by researchers?

You have most of the other debates, etc., listed on your home page under topics.

Our debate is very difficult to find.

I hope you are well,

Gene

Date: Thui, 06 Jul 2000
From: "Dave Thomas, NMSR" <det@rt66.com>
To:Eugene Faulstich <chri@ncn.net>
Subject: The Age of the Earth

Hello Gene. I'm back, but am very busy this week & next!!

When I get some time soon, I'll move the letters on Sabbath etc. to their own webpage. I don't really like how the bulletin board site works, and it IS hard for people to find! So look for that in a week or so.

Having a fun time studying chronologies. Fascinating!

Regards, Dave

Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000
From: "Dave Thomas, NMSR" <det@rt66.com>
To:Eugene Faulstich <chri@ncn.net>
Subject: The Age of the Earth

Hello Gene.

I'm back from my travels, and have been working hard on my chronology of dates. It is fascinating stuff! I'm beginning to appreciate how much work is involved.

As you'll see by visiting http://www.nmsr.org/sabbaths.htm, I have moved our correspondence off of the hard-to-find bulletin board, and onto its own web page. I hope this will make it easier for our colleagues to follow this discussion.

I'm writing a chapter of a forthcoming Prometheus book about skepticism; my chapter will be about codes like the Bible Code, and about patterns like your intriguing ensemble of 7's.

May I have your permission to quote from your e-mailed comments in this chapter? I would be happy to send you the specific quotes I have in mind, so you can be sure it's something you're willing to see in print.

I hope to wrap up my work on the chronology of America in just a few days!

Sincerely,

Dave

Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000
From: Eugene Faulstich <chri@ncn.net>
To: "Dave Thomas, NMSR" <det@rt66.com>
Subject: The Age of the Earth

I would like to see your total argument. I do not want any statement I have made taken out of context and published so as to make jest out of logic. That is so easy to do. I insist that the same two scientists who critiqued my work are allowed to critique your work and make a comment in your book. That is reasonable is it not?

I hope to evaluate your work soon. I assume that you are using American history.

Best Regards,

Gene

Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000
From: "Dave Thomas, NMSR" <det@rt66.com>
To:Eugene Faulstich <chri@ncn.net>
Subject: The Age of the Earth

Alas, your request is NOT reasonable. Prometheus books invited ME to submit a chapter to their forthcoming book, not you. I will be very interested in your critics' comments, and will be happy to include some of them in my chapter (with their permission), but I have no interest in giving over a large chunk of my very limited space to your critics to do as they please. They may, however, certainly pursue getting a book or article of their own to publish a more detailed analysis of my findings, if they so desire.

Since you're unwilling to let me quote from your e-mail letters, I will just report on what you've stated very publicly on your diverse web sites. The Fair Use doctrine permits me to do this; details are printed below.

Remember, Gene, YOU approached ME, asking me to investigate your sabbath patterns. I have become quite interested in the topic, and have invested several hours of hard work into my historical analyses. You may not appreciate my reporting on these analyses in books and magazines, but that's what I do.

You knew that, of course, when you approached me, did you not?

How did you get my name, anyway? Did you see an article of mine on the Web? Did you read my Bible Code articles in the Skeptical Inquirer, or the article on me in People Magazine (Nov. 3rd, 1997)? Perhaps you saw my work mentioned in the June 9th, 2000 Wall Street Journal (2nd to last page, article by David Murray, "The Code Cracks"). How did you learn that "Dave Thomas" is someone who might be interested in researching your sabbath patterns?

If possible, I will post my Chronology of America tonight, or perhaps later in the weekend.

I think you will be most impressed and puzzled with my results, and I eagerly await your critics' analysis.

Sincerely, Dave

>US Code as of: 01/05/99

>U.S. Code, Title 17, Sec. 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

>Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work,
>including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified
>by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including
>multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.
>In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to
>be considered shall include -
> (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether
> such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit
> educational purposes;
> (2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
> (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in
> relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
> (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or
> value of the copyrighted work. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a
> finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000
From: "Dave Thomas, NMSR" <det@rt66.com>
To:Eugene Faulstich <chri@ncn.net>
Subject: The Chronology of the United States of America.

Hello Gene. I have finished my analyses, and am very pleased to present
you with

The Chronology of the United States of America.

Like you, I have identified 13 key dates from history.

And these dates are all about powerful, significant events.

I begin with three earth-shaking events : all three New Madrid earthquakes
of 1811-1812. These were all above magnitude 7, and coming as they did at
a critical period in US history (the trial by fire of the new nation in the
war of 1812 against the British), in a region NOT known for earthquakes,
perhaps they embody the hand of G_D himself moving across the land to awaken
the new Nation to its destiny.

I have also included three key dates from the War of 1812: the declaration
of war by the U.S., the Fall of Detroit, and the Battle of Lake Erie (which
the U.S. won in a crucial turning point of the War; it is famous for
Commodore Perry's stirring remarks "We have met the enemy, and he is ours.").

I have included the 1812 dates because, for the young United States, a
nation struggling to assert itself on the world stage, the 1812 War was the
nation's literal baptism by fire - perhaps even more important than the
American Revolution.

I have included one date from the World War II era, that being Oct. 16th,
1946, the day that 10 Nazi war criminals were hung at Nuremberg.
(Incidentally, Gene, I noticed that this is one of the 13 dates YOU chose
as well! Except you got it wrong. It happened on the 16th of October, not
the 18th as you claim. You know, Gene, if you make errors this obvious on
RECENT dates, why should we trust your research on the more remote,
difficult dates of the Biblical Past? Just wondering!) Why is Nuremberg
significant? Because it never would have happened without US involvement
in WWII; the execution of Nazi criminals was really the culmination of the
huge war effort that ended, not only with the end of the Nazi regime, but
also with the establishment of the U.S. as a world superpower.

I have included three key political events: breaking relations with
Castro's Cuba; the capture of Gary Powers U-2 by the Soviet Union; and the
disastrous Bay of Pigs debacle. These important events defined the
conflicts between the US, Soviet Union, and Cuba for decades to come. (And
if you don't think tensions with Cuba are a hot topic, consider the case of
Elian.)

I have also included two extremely important events regarding space travel;
the day the first man went to space (Gargarin), and the day the first
American went to space (Shepard). These dates are crucial because
America's destiny is clearly linked to advances in space travel.

My final date, the admission of black student James Meredith to the
University of Mississippi, is included because it is a watershed in the
advancement of the recognition of civil rights for all citizens; it's even
more important than the symbolic sitting in the front of the bus by Rosa Parks.

Here are the details for my 13 Key Dates:

EVENT,calday,weekday,Julian

1) First major New Madrid earthquake (Mag ÷ 7.5)., 12/16/1811, Monday, 2382863
2) Second major New Madrid earthquake (Mag ÷ 7.3)., 01/23/1812, Thursday, 2382901
3) Third major New Madrid earthquake (Mag ÷ 7.8)., 02/07/1812, Friday, 2382916
4) U.S. declared war on Great Britain., 06/18/1812, Thursday, 2383048
5) British captured Detroit., 08/16/1812, Sunday, 2383107
6) The Battle of Lake Erie; Commodore Perry, 09/10/1813, Friday, 2383497
7) Nazi war criminals hanged in Nuremberg., 10/16/1946, Wednesday, 2432110
8) Gary Powers in U-2 Reconnaissance Plane shot down over USSR.,05/01/1960, Sunday, 2437056
9) US breaks relations with Cuba., 01/03/1961, Tuesday, 2437303
10) Yuri Gargarin; first manned orbital flight., 04/12/1961, Wednesday, 2437402
11) The Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba., 04/17/1961, Monday, 2437407
12) Alan Shepard; first U.S. manned space flight., 05/05/1961, Friday, 2437425
13) James Meredith; first black student at Univ. of Mississippi.,10/01/1962, Monday, 2437939

Now for the Analysis.

Here is my Matrix of Weeks. It's built just like yours, so you should have
no trouble interpreting my results.

date#, Adamic

1, 2122689
2, 2122727, 5
3, 2122742, 8, 2
4, 2122874, 26, 21, 19
5, 2122933, 35, 29, 27, 8
6, 2123323, 91, 85, 83, 64, 56
7, 2171936, 7035,7030,7028,7009,7000,6945
8, 2176882, 7742,7736,7734,7715,7707,7651, 707
9, 2177129, 7777,7772,7770,7751,7742,7687, 742, 35
10, 2177228, 7791,7786,7784,7765,7756,7701, 756, 49, 14
11, 2177233, 7792,7787,7784,7766,7757,7701, 757, 50, 15, 1
12, 2177251, 7795,7789,7787,7768,7760,7704, 759, 53, 17, 3, 3
13, 2177765, 7868,7863,7860,7842,7833,7777, 833, 126, 91, 77, 76, 73
ID # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Because I'm only using a couple of centuries, I don't get quite as big
numbers as you.

But I get plenty of digits to explore the probabilities!

I obtain 240 digits overall, distributed thus:

0 , 18 , 7.5 %
1 , 15 , 6.25 %
2 , 13 , 5.416667 %
3 , 16 , 6.666667 %
4 , 12 , 5 %
5 , 20 , 8.333333 %
6 , 20 , 8.333333 %
7 , 94 , 39.16667 %
8 , 20 , 8.333333 %
9 , 12 , 5 %

As you can see, I have over 39% 7's, better than your 35%.

I encourage you to verify this calculation; all you need to do is plug my
Adamic dates into your program, and see what results.

Let's look at the Chi-square calculation now.

Here is my table, modeled on yours.

N=13, ei = 240/10 = 24.

oi , zi = ABS(oi - ei)

n0 , 18 , 6
n1 , 15 , 9
n2 , 13 , 11
n3 , 16 , 8
n4 , 12 , 12
n5 , 20 , 4
n6 , 20 , 4
n7 , 94 , 70
n8 , 20 , 4
n9 , 12 , 12
--------------

My sum of the zi^2 is 5538, and so u = 5538/ei = 5538/24 = 230.75;
My Probability for the matrix is thus P = exp(-u/2)/gamma, where
gamma = [(2*pi*240)^9 p1*p2*...p0]^(1/2) [NOTE - shouldn't (2*pi*240) be
raised to the 10th power? You are using 10 digits; nonetheless, I'll stick
with 9 here so as to follow your development to the letter.]

My gamma comes out as 2.008x10^9 ; please feel free to check it. (I
reproduced your results prior to calculating mine).

Thus, P = exp(-u/2)/gamma = exp(-230.75)/2.008x10^9 = 3.8951 x 10^-60 .

This is a little larger than yours, but you surely realize how SMALL a
result of 10^-60 is;
why the chances of winning our Powerball lottery with just one ticket are a
whopping 1.25*10^-8 !!!!

That is, I have better than 10^51 times chance to win the lottery than I
do to get such a matrix by picking random dates!

Finally, let's look at pairs, triplets, and etc. Following your
development, I have:

2 pair 0's: 0.01^2 = 10^-4
2 pair 3's: 0.01^2 = 10^-4
2 pair 6's: 0.01^2 = 10^-4
25 pair 7's: 0.01^25 = 10^-50
1 pair 8's: 0.01^1 = 10^-2
1 triple 0's: 0.001^1 = 10^-3
6 triple 7's: 0.001^6 = 10^-18
2 quadruple 7's: 0.0001^2 = 10^-8

TOTAL PROBABILITY: 10^-93.

This isn't as small as yours (10^-130), but 10^-93 is SO SMALL that the
conclusion is the same.

You said "NOW IT IS UP TO YOU TO DUPLICATE OUR MATRIX OF 7'S

USING SOME OTHER NATIONAL HISTORICAL RECORD."

And that is exactly what I have done.

Have fun checking out all the details!

I'll be interested in your comments, and those of your critics.

All best from New Mexico,

Dave

Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000
From: Eugene Faulstich <chri@ncn.net>
To: "Dave Thomas, NMSR" <det@rt66.com>
Subject: The Chronology of the United States of America

Hi Dave,

I will check out the details as soon as possible, but it seems up front that you are already admitting defeat.
You claim to equal the findings of ours, yet you admit you did not equal them, and you still want me to give
you an A+ for a good job. So shooting from the hip, here is an immediate response:

Exceptions on your part:

1. You do not allow for predictions beforehand.
2. You will not allow for an independent professional comment afterward.

Claims on your part:

1. You can find 13 valid dates from American history
2. That produce an equally compelling matrix of 7’s

Lets look at your data to see if it complies with your claims.

1. 13 valid dates from American history
a. The World Book Encyclopedia lists over 120 dates as key to American history.
Only one of them appears in your list, the date US declared war on Britain.
b. The same source lists 33 major quakes. It does not include any of the 3 Madrid quakes as major quakes.

2. Equally compelling matrix of 7’s
a. There is no question that your statistics, even though they are not based on insignificant American history,
do not match mine.

Best regards,

Gene

Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000
From: "Dave Thomas, NMSR" <det@rt66.com>
To:Eugene Faulstich <chri@ncn.net>
Subject: The Chronology of the United States of America.

>Hi Dave,
>
>I will check out the details as soon as possible, but it seems up front that you are already admitting defeat.
>You claim to equal the findings of ours, yet you admit you did not equal them, and you still want me to give
>you an A+ for a good job. So shooting from the hip, here is an immediate response:

I did not admit defeat. I achieved BETTER than you on percentages of 7's;

do you agree that 39 is a bigger number than 35?

My pairs/triples/quads statistic was larger than yours, BUT 10^-93 IS BILLIONS AND BILLIONS AND BILLIONS OF TIMES SMALLER THAN THE CHANCE OF WINNING A $100,000 MILLION LOTTERY WITH A SINGLE $1 TICKET.

Come on, Eugene. Is 10^-93 "small" or not?

Likewise, my chi-square calculation was larger than yours, BUT 10^-60 IS ALSO BILLIONS AND BILLIONS AND BILLIONS OF TIMES SMALLER THAN THE CHANCE OF WINNING A $100,000 MILLION LOTTERY WITH A SINGLE $1 TICKET