Though I am sorry Gilad felt that way, I don't think his further discussion
supports this critique.
>I have shown based on the Talmud that:
>>"vav DeGichon" (VaYikra 10:42) which is supposed to be
>>the middle of the Torah in letters, and is off by about 5000 letters
>>Whatever the minor letter differences might be, the data, the Torah we have
>>today, cannot be described as "flawed."
>A difference of about 5000 letters IS NOT "minor letter diferences", and the
>only logical conclusion is the one proposed originally.
The question is, in what context? A careful reading of my original post
reveals that I called the letter differences "minor" only in the context of
preserving the _meaning_ of the Torah - and, in fact, I totally discounted
an assumption that differences between the original text and today's
version would not affect the codes.
Regarding the meaning, even countless differences of "full and deficient"
spellings of the same words would not change the text. But the codes? As
>Yaakov correctly states that:
>>the researchers showed how the removal of only a few letters drastically
>>reduced the significance of their results
Rather, I quoted Rav Yaakov Weinberg, who argued that we should expect the
codes to work with today's text.
Gilad's argument that the data is "flawed" is not a logical reaction to a
phenomenon of this nature. When scientists talk about "flawed data," they
mean data which would give biased results and therefore false conclusions.
In our case, how is the data flawed **so as to bias the results?** Why
would the Torah now in our hands be more likely to demonstrate a design?
The only answer is, of course, that it wouldn't.
We must assume that the editors of Statistical Science magazine are
professionals, and would not publish something with obvious flaws. The
patterns shown in the Torah demonstrate near-absolute probability of
non-random occurrence - meaning better than reasonable certainty of
conscious design. That's why they are causing such a stir. To say "OK, but
we'll ignore the
results because we 'should' have looked at another document which we (of
course) do not have..." isn't a rational response.
For a good look at the codes and an explanation by Harold Gans, along with
an explanation of what the codes are _not_, please visit: