The Bible And Science: Pi (Take 2)

[Audie]

In the grand scheme of things discussing biblical inerrancy in terms of the approximate ratio of diameter to circumference is silly.

To really see biblical inerrancy at its finest, one just needs to point to the nonsense of the Great Flood.

Yes, in the grand scheme. But, ever try to
tell a floodie how we know there was no
flood? Next thing you know it is grand canyon
and oysters on Everest.

Hence the choice to look at something very
small, but stone obvious. Like that "30 cubits"
is approximate, involves some percent of
(GASP) error!

We have yet to find a fundie who will even go
that far let alone "so Jesus is a liar coz he spoke
of Noah".

Let us know if you find one!

 

[Shad]

I got how prophecy contradicted the point attempted.

If not Pi to 31 trillion decimal places, then
sone other impossible-for- the-time knowledge.

The apologists always say ( make up) something
about people not being ready for the knowledge.

To me it seems more like negating the value
of faith though it is all make -believe anyway.

More like using blind-faith to override any issue.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I find numerology to be particularly silly. You can take *any* text and find numerical patterns if you look hard enough.

Why, you are correct! By simply taking a random sample from your post above, we have...

"I . . . find . . . be . . . silly . . . You . . . hard . . . enough."

 

[Audie]

More like using blind-faith to override any issue.

You used a lot fewer words than I did, to say more.
That hardly seems fair.

 

[Shad]

You used a lot fewer words than I did, to say more.
That hardly seems fair.

I have minimum word count quota to meet, no more

 

[Audie]

I have minimum word count quota to meet, no more

Use fewer words.

 

[tas8831]

I don't understand the logic in that criticism. Why would it be a poor approximation if it was the extent of the knowledge of the people at the time? Why would you expect some "deity," which is just another word for "mighty" or "venerated" to write to the people of a specific time using a language or knowledge that is more advanced than their own? This isn't science fiction.

No, but it is fiction to think that the stories in the bible are not mere stories written by men.

 

[tas8831]

Are you proselytizing Atheism? Proselytizing: attempting to convert others away from their religion...

So stating facts is proselytizing Atheism? Huh...

 

[tas8831]

Exactly. It had a brim which explains the divergence between the actual inside and the outside.

You got that from Kent Hovind, didn't you?

 

[tas8831]

How is the fact wrong? The first measurement would be of the inner diameter. The second measurement is of the outside which was bigger than the inner diameter and included a brim. Basically it probably curled over on the edge or protruded in some manner.

Here is one artist's concept of what it may have looked like. The protrusion on the brim is plainly visible.

Wow, cool - so you are saying that if you measure the inside diameter of the rim of a bowl and also measure the outside of the rim of the same bowl, that the whole pi thing no longer applies?

So, when doing calculations a circle of diameter x, pi applies, but a circle of diameter x+1, it no longer does?

Amazing biblical math!

 

[tas8831]

I challenge all skeptics to post the entire number pi on this thread. Thank you.

Because you know you can't even do it.

I challenge believers to post the means by which Jehovah converted silicates to thousands of bio-organic polymers when He created Adam from duct of the ground.

 

[tas8831]

10 cubits in diameter and giving it a 30 cubits circumference is pretty close being this was thousands of years ago with limited knowledge including maths.
In all honestly it is not much different with our knowledge and we date something at +/- 100 million years.

They weren't exact and neither are we in current days.

It's all petty arguments that mean and add up to nothing.

I would generally agree, if it were not for the fact that a large sect of Christianity posits the bible being infallible and 100% accurate. In my experience, members of this group are the first to engage in hysterical apologetics, excuse-making, equivocation, etc., when 'errors' are pointed out. when

 

[tas8831]

Why, you are correct! By simply taking a random sample from your post above, we have...

"I . . . find . . . be . . . silly . . . You . . . hard . . . enough."

But no evidence for the bible codes... Got it.

 

[tas8831]

You ignored the context of the verse you quoted. The passage includes this: “And the thickness of it was an handbreadth, and the brim of it like the work of the brim of a cup, with flowers of lilies; and it received and held three thousand baths.” So II Chronicles actually supports me. That is evidence.

Does the equation utilizing pi not work in circles larger than the internal diameter?

Can you demonstrate that mathematically?

 

[ecco]

Why, you are correct! By simply taking a random sample from your post above, we have...

"I . . . find . . . be . . . silly . . . You . . . hard . . . enough."

There ya go again - spewing porn.

 

[Skwim]

Because I had nothing better to do:

To my eyes, and what I've learned of ancient measuring practices, such an error, almost 5%, would be unforgivable.

 

[74x12]

I challenge believers to post the means by which Jehovah converted silicates to thousands of bio-organic polymers when He created Adam from duct of the ground.

Tell us how complete random chance accomplished this. Then you can logically deduce for yourself that if you think complete random chance does something; then it should be no problem for God.

 

[ecco]

Tell us how complete random chance accomplished this.

To whom are you addressing the question? Only creos raise the issue of random chance playing a role in the origins of humans. Rational people don't.

Do you think two hydrogen atoms "stick" to one oxygen atom because of random chance?

 

[74x12]

To whom are you addressing the question? Only creos raise the issue of random chance playing a role in the origins of humans. Rational people don't.

Do you think two hydrogen atoms "stick" to one oxygen atom because of random chance?

*pats your back consolingly* Yes, you are a rational people.

Yep confirmed, functioning, self replicating DNA just forms by itself; simply because atoms stick together. Let's ignore the fact that DNA by itself isn't making anything useful. It needs a functioning cell. Alright, I concede defeat! You've clearly proposed a highly reasonable explanation for the origins of life and it's basically undeniable! ugh!! foiled again!

However, none of that is even my point. The point is that if you think it can happen by itself; then you know a God can do it. So why ask me how God did it?

Maybe, He hit some primordial soup with some lightening and poof! It just happened. Basically, the same explanation people give for abiogenesis. But way more probable.

 

[ecco]

To whom are you addressing the question? Only creos raise the issue of random chance playing a role in the origins of humans. Rational people don't.

Do you think two hydrogen atoms "stick" to one oxygen atom because of random chance?

*pats your back consolingly* Yes, you are a rational people.

Yes, I know I am. By the way, I think the word you were looking for is "condescendingly".

Yep confirmed, functioning, self replicating DNA just forms by itself; simply because atoms stick together. Let's ignore the fact that DNA by itself isn't making anything useful. It needs a functioning cell. Alright, I concede defeat! You've clearly proposed a highly reasonable explanation for the origins of life and it's basically undeniable! ugh!! foiled again!

I wasn't proposing an explanation for the origins of life. I was addressing your view that random chance plays a role in the origins of humans.

However, none of that is even my point. The point is that if you think it can happen by itself; then you know a God can do it. So why ask me how God did it?

I didn't ask you how your god did it. It's clearly written in your holy scripture.

27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

21And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 22And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
​

It's so simple a five-year-old could understand it. And that's the appeal. That's so much easier than having to study and learn complicated stuff.

By the way, in the earlier versions, it was probably the penile bone, not a rib. That was changed so they could tell the story to five-year-olds without getting embarrassed.

Maybe, He hit some primordial soup with some lightening and poof! It just happened. Basically, the same explanation people give for abiogenesis. But way more probable.

Well, no. That's not the same explanation rational people give for abiogenesis. The only people who make comments like that are creos. The same creos who disparagingly throw around terms like "random chance".

It's obvious you got most of your 'learnin' from CARM, AIG, and similar sites.