The heptadic structure of the genealogy of Jesus Christ can not be replicated
Debate Round Forfeited
Abeceda has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style:  Open  Point System:  7 Point  
Started:  8/30/2016  Category:  Religion  
Updated:  6 months ago  Status:  Debating Period  
Viewed:  218 times  Debate No:  95074 
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (8)
Votes (0)
Russian mathematician Ivan Panin discovered this structure a century ago. Skeptics claim that it's only coincidence and that it can easily be written by anyone. So I am here to request that a person be the contender and actually produce such a genealogy and prove once and for all that Ivan Panin was an idiot.
What you have do to, is write an entirely fictional genealogy and fulfill all of the requirements below. You are free to use any computer programs that you believe would be able to help you in your mission. I wish you luck and I am positive that you will not be able to do it, exactly because it's divinely inspired. May the one that is correct win. (1) The total number of letters has to be divisible by seven (2) The total number of words has to be divisible by seven (3) The total number of names has to be divisible by seven (4) The total number of vowels has to be divisible by seven (5) The total number of nouns has to be divisible by seven (6) The total number of generations has to be divisible by seven (7) The total number of male names has to be divisible by seven (8) The total number of words that begin with a vowel must be divisible by seven (9) The total number of words that appear in one form must be divisible by seven (10) The total number of words that appear only once must be divisible by seven (11) The total number of words that begin with a consonant must be divisible by seven
I am not going to do that. Obviously, that would be very hard, next to impossible to replicate. That doesn't mean it is divine. This question is set up as a classic "burden of proof" fallacy (Look here for the definition: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...). You are claiming that your answer is true unless someone can prove it wrong. By attempting to force me to prove your answer wrong, you are giving me a vastly harder task. I'm also reminded of a tweet by Brian Eno (Wikipedia Page Here: https://en.wikipedia.org...). "Instead of shooting arrows at somebody else's target, I make my own target around wherever my arrow has happened to have landed." It's easy to make such a difficult to replicate pattern, as long as you create the pattern first and then decide the criteria. For example, try to replicate the criteria below. 1. There are x whole integers 2. None of them are greater than x * x 3. None of them are lower than x  x 4. One of them is x squared 5. One of them is x factorial 6. They are all divisible by x 7. One of them is equal to x * x 8. One of them is equal to x * (x  1) 9. One of them is equal to x * (x  2) The only possible answer is "3, 6, 9" but that doesn't prove that there is anything divine about that series of numbers 

This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet. 
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.
Here is an evangelical source explaining why Chuck's claim that the antichrist is an ET or related to one is not scriptural. He is widely identified as a false teacher and some have gone as far to say he is not of sincere faith, but merely, literally; a charlatan book merchant.
Who am I to judge, but the explanation does fit the facts.
http://calvarychapel.pbworks.com...
He is also notorious for plagiarism, which I guess one could use to claim he is not a crazy as his stolen works would lead you to believe.
Also no matter how many times Mary appears it is still only one name, what you should have written is "instances of names".
Also I have heard of plural forms but not "f.ex. plural form".
Overhead  I did not write names that appear once, I wrote names. This means the same name repeated more than once is included in the total value of names. Also, haven't you heard that certain nouns have a plural form, or for example singular form? If you haven't that kind of amazes me.
Also what is "f.ex. plural form" I googled that particular phrase and there are precisely 0 results on the entire internet of that being said other than right here and how.
About your final point, that there is nothing special about the number seven being included and that it's purely accidental (since this doesn't apply to 1,2,3,4,5,6,8,9,10,11,12,13,15 etc... only 7) the only thing I can say to that is, accept the challenge, write me a genealogy like that and you'll see that even with your intelligence and the technology of the 21st century you can't do it.
Also points 9 and 10 are confusing. How does a word begin with a noun  surely it either is a noun or it isn't and what is the "form of a word being referenced in point 10?
Moreover, I don't think this is really an accurate test. The bible allegedly has a load of things to do with the number 7 involved in one section of one book in one language. The thing is, there is nothing innate to the number 7 or those particular examples of the number 7 being involved. If the finding had been all about the connection of the number 8 and the number 8 had cropped up in different ways than you claim the number 7 has, surely that would be viewed as just as extraordinary. Therefore anyone that can present a test which has a lot of links to a single number in some form should be viewed as equal.