What are the major scientific errors in major religious scriptures?

[Jabar]

Evidence is not required to point out someone's lack of support for a claim, those are very different constructions.

With respect to your lack of knowledge concerning the shape of the Earth and the shape of an ostrich egg ... you are attempting to play retrospective pigeon chess, a game that doesn't wash even in the here and now. Go back and reread the thread, I suspect that you are remembering is the pain of your face plant, rather than the details of the conversation.

I have well, and an ostrich egg is not oval.

 

[Jabar]

Sapien's Rules of Debate:
1. Sapien is always right
2. If Sapien is wrong, refer to rule 1.
3. And remember, whether you agree with Sapien or not, you have no evidence, your beliefs are false, and Sapien is more educated than you in every subject.

Exactly. High five.

 

[Sapiens]

I have well, and an ostrich egg is not oval.

Under the heading "Oval" in wiki:

Egg shape:

The shape of an egg is approximate by "long" half of a prolate spheroid, joined to a "short" half of a roughly spherical ellipsoid, or even a slightly oblate spheroid. These are joined at the equator and sharing a principal axis of rotational symmetry, as illustrated above. Although the term egg-shaped usually implies a lack of reflection symmetry across the equatorial plane, it may also refer to true prolate ellipsoids. It can also be used to describe the 2-dimensional figure that, if revolved around its major axis, produces the 3-dimensional surface.

 

[Jabar]

Under the heading "Oval" in wiki:

Egg shape:

The shape of an egg is approximate by "long" half of a prolate spheroid, joined to a "short" half of a roughly spherical ellipsoid, or even a slightly oblate spheroid. These are joined at the equator and sharing a principal axis of rotational symmetry, as illustrated above. Although the term egg-shaped usually implies a lack of reflection symmetry across the equatorial plane, it may also refer to true prolate ellipsoids. It can also be used to describe the 2-dimensional figure that, if revolved around its major axis, produces the 3-dimensional surface.

Brother, i said OSTRICH EGG. It is different in shape.

Besides, eggs are not completely oval you know.

 

[Sapiens]

Brother, i said OSTRICH EGG. It is different in shape.

Please demonstrate to us all how an ostrich egg differs from this description:

The shape of an egg is approximated by "long" half of a prolate spheroid, joined to a "short" half of a roughly spherical ellipsoid, or even a slightly oblate spheroid. These are joined at the equator and sharing a principal axis of rotational symmetry, as illustrated above. Although the term egg-shaped usually implies a lack of reflection symmetry across the equatorial plane, it may also refer to true prolate ellipsoids. It can also be used to describe the 2-dimensional figure that, if revolved around its major axis, produces the 3-dimensional surface.

 

[Jabar]

Please demonstrate to us all how an ostrich egg differs from this description:

The shape of an egg is approximated by "long" half of a prolate spheroid, joined to a "short" half of a roughly spherical ellipsoid, or even a slightly oblate spheroid. These are joined at the equator and sharing a principal axis of rotational symmetry, as illustrated above. Although the term egg-shaped usually implies a lack of reflection symmetry across the equatorial plane, it may also refer to true prolate ellipsoids. It can also be used to describe the 2-dimensional figure that, if revolved around its major axis, produces the 3-dimensional surface.

Lets say for the sake of discussion, you are correct.

The real definition is expanse.

Besides, both meanings fit similarly.

Some eggs are shaped differently then others.

 

[Jabar]

Please demonstrate to us all how an ostrich egg differs from this description:

The shape of an egg is approximated by "long" half of a prolate spheroid, joined to a "short" half of a roughly spherical ellipsoid, or even a slightly oblate spheroid. These are joined at the equator and sharing a principal axis of rotational symmetry, as illustrated above. Although the term egg-shaped usually implies a lack of reflection symmetry across the equatorial plane, it may also refer to true prolate ellipsoids. It can also be used to describe the 2-dimensional figure that, if revolved around its major axis, produces the 3-dimensional surface.

One ostrich egg is equivalent to 24 chicken eggs. They can weigh as much as 5 pounds.

Weight usually affects shape.

Chicken eggs alone can vary in shape, now you are telling me a ostrich egg does not apply?

Even so, the real translation is expanse.

 

[Sapiens]

Lets say for the sake of discussion, you are correct.

No, for the "sake you discussion" you'd have to assume me wrong. If you assume I am correct then the discussion is over.

The real definition is expanse.

"Expanse?"

Besides, both meanings fit similarly.

Only if you are mathematically unenlightend and straining credulity to make a point and avoid admitting your error. From The Ellipses Calculator - Centre for Innovation in Mathematics Teaching, University of Exeter: " ... once the size of an ellipse has been fixed then its exact shape is mathematically determined. In other words, the line forming the perimeter can be drawn in only ONE way. This is distinct from an oval where the perimeter has only to be a concave curve, and there are many possibilities. Simply, an ellipse IS an oval, but an oval may or may not be an ellipse."

Some eggs are shaped differently then others.

Yes, eggs run from virtually spherical to oval. But that is not the point. You are trying to cover up both your error and your incorrect accusation that was directed at me. Please acknowledge both and apologize for your personal attack so that we may move on.

 

[Jabar]

No, for the "sake you discussion" you'd have to assume me wrong. If you assume I am correct then the discussion is over.

"Expanse?"
Only if you are mathematically unenlightend and straining credulity to make a point and avoid admitting your error:
From The Ellipses Calculator - Centre for Innovation in Mathematics Teaching, University of Exeter: http://www.ex.ac.uk/cimt/res2/calcs/callipse.htm

... once the size of an ellipse has been fixed then its exact shape is mathematically determined. In other words, the line forming the perimeter can be drawn in only ONE way. This is distinct from an oval where the perimeter has only to be a concave curve, and there are many possibilities. Simply, an ellipse IS an oval, but an oval may or may not be an ellipse.

Yes, eggs run from virtually spherical to oval. But that is not the point. You are trying to cover up both your error and your incorrect accusation that was directed at me. Please acknowledge both and apologize for your personal attack so that we may move on.

Haha, you are always right am i correct?

The real definition is spread out.

Refer to my other comment.

 

[Sapiens]

Haha, you are always right am i correct?

No, you are clearly incorrect (yet again). Any competent scientist will tell you that a claim of "always" is foolish on the face of it.

The real definition is spread out.

Spread out where?

Refer to my other comment.

I have referred your other comment.

 

[Jabar]

No, you are clearly incorrect (yet again). Any competent scientist will tell you that a claim of "always" is foolish on the face of it.
Spread out where?

I have referred your other comment.

The verse says he has spread the earth.

79:30
Copy
ﮛﮜﮝﮞﮟ
SAHIH INTERNATIONAL
And after that He spread the earth.

You yourself is incorrect.

 

[Sapiens]

You make a statement:

...
I mean, why put menstruating women outside the camp? Would I "catch" a case of menstruation? The laws of what is unclean (and the uncleanliness is highly contagious) are ridiculously false.

I agree with you:

...
Thank you for clear evidence of how wrong and foolish the OT concept of "cleanliness" was.

... and you insult me:

Sapien's Rules of Debate:
1. Sapien is always right
2. If Sapien is wrong, refer to rule 1.
3. And remember, whether you agree with Sapien or not, you have no evidence, your beliefs are false, and Sapien is more educated than you in every subject.

What's worse, you insult me in a fashion that violate a primary rule of scientific thought: "Always" is always wrong, it leaves no room for future contradiction and correction.

 

[Sapiens]

The verse says he has spread the earth.

79:30
Copy
ﮛﮜﮝﮞﮟ
SAHIH INTERNATIONAL
And after that He spread the earth.

You yourself is incorrect.

Then you are admitting that your book is wrong with respect to the shape of the Earth?

 

[Jabar]

Then you are admitting that your book is wrong with respect to the shape of the Earth?

The book never stated that, so nope.

You fail to find an error.

 

[Brian Schuh]

You make a statement:

I agree with you:

... and you insult me:

What's worse, you insult me in a fashion that violate a primary rule of scientific thought: "Always" is always wrong, it leaves no room for future contradiction and correction.

The priests of the ancient Hebrews were also like "doctors." If there was a doubt about if a skin condition was contagious, it was in the interest of the community to keep you out if the camp. It wasn't a perfect system. It hurts me to think that some had noncontagious skin conditions that largely lost their lives by living out of the camp.

 

[Sapiens]

The book never stated that, so nope.

You fail to find an error.

You found the error and now you deny it. Nice.

 

[Jabar]

You found the error and now you deny it. Nice.

There was no error i found.


Good try.

 

[Sapiens]

If I have some time to waste I will go back through the posts and demonstrate what I perceive to be your prevarication.

For the moment, I leave that for others to do for themselves and to judge for themselves. Your statements and flip-flops are clear enough that they will be obvious to even the most casual observer.