|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: 51 scientific facts that disprove the Bible | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3320 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Refer to messages 21 and 25 by moi.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
I've always thought making a big deal out of the pi=3 thing as being pretty bogus. While it would have been impressive if the Bible had used 3.1 or 3.14 etc., 3 is a pretty workable approximation (and yes, I came up with "pretty workable approximation" prior to re-tracking down the following).
From http://fundiesvatheists.lefora.com/2009/01/14/arguments-about-...:
quote: The cited and quoted site is an outgrowth (abandonment?) of one of the old MSN EvC sites. The above cited also covers “Well, YOUR Bible says that rabbits chew their cud?”, “YOUR Bible says bats are birds!!”, "Your Bible states that Whales and Birds were created before the land animals from whom they descend" (wrong). They file all these under "Arguments about the accuracy of the Bible that we should not make". Moose Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment. "Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham "The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith "As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron." - H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) "Nixon was a professional politician, and I despised everything he stood for ” but if he were running for president this year against the evil Bush-Cheney gang, I would happily vote for him." - Hunter S. Thompson "I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
I think it's extremely questionable that the Bible gives a value of 3 in the first place, as it requires you to make assumptions about the shape of the vessel that aren't in the text anyway.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2324 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Mr Jack writes:
Well, here's the quote:
I think it's extremely questionable that the Bible gives a value of 3 in the first place, as it requires you to make assumptions about the shape of the vessel that aren't in the text anyway.quote:So, it DOES say it is completely round. And to Moose: I wouldn't mind the bible using the value of 3 for Pi, it is a close enough aproximation. Except for one tiny fact. The bible is supposed to be the inerrant word of god. You can't be inerrant if you state pi equals 3. I hunt for the truth
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
Whether it says 'completely round' or not depends on your translation.. More importantly it is not at all certain that the description it gives is the diameter and circumference of the same circle, especially given the following passage where it says "It was a handbreadth thick; and its brim was shaped like the brim of a cup, like a lily blossom" (from the NKJV translation you quoted).
As rare as it may be, I think Answers in Genesis gets this one right (the 2nd suggestion, not the 1st).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Buzsaw writes: Mod writes:
It appears that you've so soon forgotten that relative to the Exodus and the wilderness sojourn of the Israelites, creationist science research has falsified the alleged traditional Mt Sinai on the Sinai Peninsula because new evidence shows that the actual Mt Sinai is in Saudi Arabia. The spirit of the claim is no doubt true: science does not have dogma and changes its views as evidence roles in whereas the Bible doesn't change - only its interpretation by its readers. Is the claim itself actually true? What are these facts? If it is true, does it support the strong claim that the Bible is eternally TRUE whereas as science is only temporally 'true'?
Are you suggesting that this means the Bible has changed? Or are you suggesting that this is evidence that science never updates its ideas as new evidence rolls in? Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Modulous writes: Are you suggesting that this means the Bible has changed? Or are you suggesting that this is evidence that science never updates its ideas as new evidence rolls in? I took your comment to which I responded to allege that anything Biblical is dogmatic "Characterized by an authoritative, arrogant assertion of unproved or unprovable principles" (Online Dictionary).(I would change the dictionary wording to unfalsifiable.) My point was that Biblical research is ongoing so as to falsify or support the Biblical hypothesis, which is supported by substantial corroborative evidence. The ID creationist evidence, as with conventional science, is subject to revision relative to ongoing research. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
I took your comment to which I responded to allege that anything Biblical is dogmatic "Characterized by an authoritative, arrogant assertion of unproved or unprovable principles" (Online Dictionary). (I would change the dictionary wording to unfalsifiable.) You seem to have dived into the deep end a little. I didn't use the word 'dogmatic' I used the word 'dogma'. So if you want to think I was alleging that the Bible is dogmatic you should have used the primary definition of dogmatic which, in that same dictionary is "Relating to, characteristic of, or resulting from dogma." Dogma is defined
quote: I was using it to mean something akin to the more general definition laid out in (2). I did this because, well look at the quote I was referring to:
quote: I took the spirit of this claim and realised it was largely true. The Bible hasn't changed, the claims laid out in it are the same today as they were three hundred years ago. The claims of science have changed. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi Huntard,
Huntard writes: I wouldn't mind the bible using the value of 3 for Pi, it is a close enough aproximation. Except for one tiny fact. The bible is supposed to be the inerrant word of god. You can't be inerrant if you state pi equals 3. The verse in question does not state pi equals 3. Here is the KJV.
7:23 And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about. It states that a line of thirty cubits went around the item he built. That would indicate he did have a perfect circle. God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2541 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
Actually, using what the bible tells us, we can determine pi. You divide circumference by diameter to get a rough approximation of pi.
30 cubits divided by 10 cubits equals 3 cubits. Ergo, pi=3. Of course, the babylonians figured pi to be 3.125 by 1900 BCE. The egyptians figured it to be 3.16049 around the same time. The indians, in the shatapatha brahmana got it to be 3.139. So the bible is far worse than much earlier texts. Even assuming some of the interpretations to bring it in closer in line, you still have a text that gives the wrong number for pi.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4988 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
So, a diameter of 10 and a circumference of 30 doesn't mean pi=3?
The circumference should be 31.4, god is a about a cubit and a half out for this 'perfect circle'.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi Brian,
Brian writes: The circumference should be 31.4, god is a about a cubit and a half out for this 'perfect circle'. Actually it should be 31.41592653589793. If Hiram built a round bath tub that was 10 cubits in diameter the outside circumference would be 31.41592653589793 cubits. Since the brim of it was a hand breadth thick and my hand is 4 1/8" wide. If you subtract double my hand width from a cubit you have 9.55 cubits left which means the inside circumference was 30.00220984178252315 CUBITS. Thus the statement would be correct. God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 4745 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: |
Hidden; with apologies to Modulous.
Actually it should be 31.41592653589793. Why should it be that instead of 31.415 92653 58979 32384 62643 cubits round? Just wondering.
1 Kings 7:23 And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about. This is the text that would stand as the authority on Hiram's work. " . he made a molten sea . "; "It was . "; " . did compass it . " What is "it"? A molten sea. Therefore, 1 Me 7:23 And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: the molten sea was round all about, and his height for the molten sea was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass the molten sea round about. If Hiram built a round bath tub that was 10 cubits in diameter the outside circumference would be 31.41592653589793 cubits. Since the brim of it was a hand breadth thick and my hand is 4 1/8" wide. If you subtract double my hand width from a cubit you have 9.55 cubits left which means the inside circumference was 30.00220984178252315 CUBITS. Thus the statement would be correct. You, for some reason of your own, measure a "bath tub" in one case and Hiram's molton sea in another. How did Hiram know the width of your hand to 18 significant digits (I assume the 19th digit is to prevent rounding error)? How did you measure your hand width to 18 significant figures? Sorry to run the above into the ground (yeah, right), but we really need to get the original list of 51 "facts" and the reasons they were later dismissed or we just end up counting dragon scales (to 18 significant digits, even). Edited by lyx2no, : Mis-phrase. Edited by lyx2no, : Spelin Edited by lyx2no, : No reason given. Edited by lyx2no, : Manners Genesis 2 17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness. 18 And we all live happily ever after.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kapyong Member (Idle past 3471 days) Posts: 344 Joined: |
Gday,
Peg writes: So, a diameter of 10 and a circumference of 30 doesn't mean pi=3? How many significant figures in the first numbers?One. And to one significant figure, Pi IS 3. K.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2726 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hey, guys.
Did you notice that Modulous bumped an old thread about "Pi=3?" It's right here: Pi=3? Can you talk about pi there? I'd personally like to get back to making a list of facts: we only got to about 40. -Bluejay/Mantis/Thylacosmilus Darwin loves you.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024