Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   51 scientific facts that disprove the Bible
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 46 of 167 (496716)
01-30-2009 4:04 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Buzsaw
01-29-2009 11:06 PM


Re: Our own list?
Refer to messages 21 and 25 by moi.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Buzsaw, posted 01-29-2009 11:06 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 47 of 167 (496718)
01-30-2009 4:38 AM


The pi=3 argument
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:
“YOUR Bible says that pi is equal to 3. How could they be so wrong! Obviously they were mistaken.” (This is one SlappyKinkade particularly dislikes)
Wanting the Bible to have a value of 3.14159 etc for pi again commits the error of granting the Bible status as a science text which ought to be precisely accurate. However, if you were building the sorts of things that were built in those days, 3 is a pretty workable approximation of the value of pi, which would allow you, for example, to calculate quickly the number of bricks to use in building the foundation level of a well head or other round structure. Incidentally, the Bible does not refer to this measurement as a constant, but mentions a round object with a breadith of 10 cubits and a line of 30 cubits which could enclose it. Refer back to the Intro 1 for the reason why, in the end, this doesn’t matter anyway.
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

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Dr Jack, posted 01-30-2009 4:42 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 48 of 167 (496719)
01-30-2009 4:42 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Minnemooseus
01-30-2009 4:38 AM


Re: The pi=3 argument
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Minnemooseus, posted 01-30-2009 4:38 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Huntard, posted 01-30-2009 5:03 AM Dr Jack has replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 49 of 167 (496720)
01-30-2009 5:03 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Dr Jack
01-30-2009 4:42 AM


Re: The pi=3 argument
Mr Jack writes:
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.
Well, here's the quote:
quote:
And he made the Sea of cast bronze, ten cubits from one brim to the other; it was completely round. Its height was five cubits, and a line of thirty cubits measured its circumference.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Dr Jack, posted 01-30-2009 4:42 AM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Dr Jack, posted 01-30-2009 5:33 AM Huntard has not replied
 Message 54 by ICANT, posted 01-30-2009 11:08 AM Huntard has not replied

Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 50 of 167 (496721)
01-30-2009 5:33 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Huntard
01-30-2009 5:03 AM


Re: The pi=3 argument
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).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Huntard, posted 01-30-2009 5:03 AM Huntard has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 51 of 167 (496724)
01-30-2009 6:06 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Buzsaw
01-29-2009 8:03 PM


Buzsaw writes:
Mod writes:
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'?
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Buzsaw, posted 01-29-2009 8:03 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Buzsaw, posted 01-30-2009 10:15 AM Modulous has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 167 (496754)
01-30-2009 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Modulous
01-30-2009 6:06 AM


Re: Scientific Facts
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Modulous, posted 01-30-2009 6:06 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Modulous, posted 01-30-2009 10:39 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 53 of 167 (496757)
01-30-2009 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Buzsaw
01-30-2009 10:15 AM


Re: Scientific Facts
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:
1. A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church.
2. An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true. See synonyms at doctrine.
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:
Today the Bible remains as it was then, but not one of those fifty-one so-called facts is held by men of science."
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Buzsaw, posted 01-30-2009 10:15 AM Buzsaw has not replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 54 of 167 (496763)
01-30-2009 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Huntard
01-30-2009 5:03 AM


Re: The pi=3 argument
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Huntard, posted 01-30-2009 5:03 AM Huntard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by kuresu, posted 01-30-2009 12:00 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 56 by Brian, posted 01-30-2009 12:03 PM ICANT has replied

kuresu
Member (Idle past 2513 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 55 of 167 (496766)
01-30-2009 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by ICANT
01-30-2009 11:08 AM


Re: The pi=3 argument
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by ICANT, posted 01-30-2009 11:08 AM ICANT has not replied

Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 56 of 167 (496767)
01-30-2009 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by ICANT
01-30-2009 11:08 AM


Re: The pi=3 argument
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'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by ICANT, posted 01-30-2009 11:08 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by ICANT, posted 01-30-2009 3:05 PM Brian has not replied
 Message 59 by Kapyong, posted 01-30-2009 4:52 PM Brian has not replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 57 of 167 (496783)
01-30-2009 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Brian
01-30-2009 12:03 PM


Re: The pi=3 argument
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Brian, posted 01-30-2009 12:03 PM Brian has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by lyx2no, posted 01-30-2009 4:03 PM ICANT has not replied

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 58 of 167 (496788)
01-30-2009 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by ICANT
01-30-2009 3:05 PM


The Original 51
Hidden; with apologies to Modulous.


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by ICANT, posted 01-30-2009 3:05 PM ICANT has not replied

Kapyong
Member (Idle past 3442 days)
Posts: 344
Joined: 05-22-2003


Message 59 of 167 (496791)
01-30-2009 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Brian
01-30-2009 12:03 PM


Re: The pi=3 argument
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Brian, posted 01-30-2009 12:03 PM Brian has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Blue Jay, posted 01-30-2009 5:48 PM Kapyong has not replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 60 of 167 (496794)
01-30-2009 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Kapyong
01-30-2009 4:52 PM


Pi = 3: Now on its very own thread!
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Kapyong, posted 01-30-2009 4:52 PM Kapyong has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Thelazia, posted 01-31-2009 12:25 AM Blue Jay has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024