06 Dec 11
2 edits
Originally posted by googlefudgeIn reference to your link:
http://gospelofreason.wordpress.com/2007/06/13/god-said-pi-3-stand-by-your-beliefs-dammit/
EDIT: For anyone other than mathematicians taking Pi beyond 3.141592654 +/- 0.0000000005 is pretty
pointless most of the time.
You can calculate the circumference of the visible universe to the nearest plank length in less than 100 digits...
Or at least yo ...[text shortened]... racy.
The fact that we now know beyond the trillionth digit is just showing off computer power.
A diameter of 10 cubits should yield a circle having a circumference of more that
31.4 cubits instead of 30 cubits using the know value of pi as 3.14+.
First, the Bible says that the molten sea was “ten cubits from brim to brim.” This
logically would be from the very edge of the rim on one side to the very farthest
point on the opposite side. Second, the same verse declares that “a line of 30
cubits did compass it round about.” The "it" refers to the sea, or the liquid
contained in the vessel. The measurement is the inner diameter of the basin,
which is the distance around the sea.
The 10 cubits from brim to brim becomes the outer diameter, while the 30-cubit
measurement describes the inner circumference. Since the diameter of a circle
is obtained by dividing the circumference by (pi), the inner diameter would be
calculated to be 9.549 cubits. The thickness of the vessel is found by taking
half of the difference between the inner and outer diameter.
Thus, 10 - 9.549 = 0.451 divided by 2 = 0.2255 cubits thick.
Verse 5 indicates that the thickness of the vessel was “an handbreadth.” That is
precisely the same thickness as previously calculated!
So we see on closer examination the Holy Bible does not say (pi) is 3, but
that is a miscalculation by someone who does not understand.
06 Dec 11
Originally posted by KellyJayyou're points are moot since i was not talking about creatures being related (which they are; all creatures, anywhere on earth). i was in fact talking about the existence of more primitive versions of an advanced function.
Looking similar does not mean they are related, we have creatures today that
have similar looks that our not, so seeing a more primitive lifeform with
features that are not as complex as today does not automatically mean they
are at all related. Drawing that line to conect those dots is a matter of faith.
Kelly
06 Dec 11
Originally posted by VoidSpiritYou want to prove your statement of faith with another statement of faith?
you're points are moot since i was not talking about creatures being related (which they are; all creatures, anywhere on earth). i was in fact talking about the existence of more primitive versions of an advanced function.
Seriously, all creatures are related? You have a lot of faith in your belief
system!
I was talking about both creatures and various features each creature shares
as well. An eye for example in today's life forms we see that some have very
complex set of eyes, and by comparison other sets that are not as complex,
that does not all mean that those creatures with less complex eyes came
before those with more complex eyes! It only means that some or more
complex than others, and you want to make the huge leap of faith saying that
in distant past those eyes that are not as complex came before those eyes that
are more complex. When we have the same type of variation today and know
that isn't true.
Kelly
06 Dec 11
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsMy cranial cavity would explode from this sort of mental masturbation.
In reference to your link:
A diameter of 10 cubits should yield a circle having a circumference of more that
31.4 cubits instead of 30 cubits using the know value of pi as 3.14+.
First, the Bible says that the molten sea was “ten cubits from brim to brim.” This
logically would be from the very edge of the rim on one side to the very farthest
point o ible does not say (pi) is 3, but
that is a miscalculation by someone who does not understand.
06 Dec 11
Originally posted by galveston75It meant that Neanderthals were not too dissimilar to us. A lot of humans, read religious people, think we are so very special because we are so far removed from the rest of life on this planet. This is mainly because our evolutionary branch has been broken, we are the last remaining relics of the Homo genus. Neanderthals were so like us some of us actually bred with them, even though they are no longer with us their DNA lives on in mine and your bodies.
"were still alive you wouldn't feel quite so special"
So what did this comment mean?
Now back to my question, how do you reconcile the discovery of Neanderthal DNA in the human genome with your religious beliefs?
07 Dec 11
Originally posted by KellyJayit's no belief system.. i accept it as the best possible explanation until someone can provide a better one. forget about special creation, it just doesn't fit the evidence at all, in any way.
[b]You want to prove your statement of faith with another statement of faith?
Seriously, all creatures are related? You have a lot of faith in your belief
system!
I was talking about both creatures and various features each creature shares
as well. An eye for example in today's life forms we see that some have very
complex set of eyes, and by comparison other sets that are not as complex,
that does not all mean that those creatures with less complex eyes came
before those with more complex eyes!
no it doesn't, but it does suggest reducible complexity. there are many other things that support the relation theory, mainly that all [known] living creatures are RNA-DNA based lifeforms and they share many things in common. and before you ask, no, this is not the only criteria for determining common ancestry.
It only means that some or more
complex than others, and you want to make the huge leap of faith saying that
in distant past those eyes that are not as complex came before those eyes that
are more complex. When we have the same type of variation today and know
that isn't true.
Kelly
but what can be determined from the fossil records is that more complex forms (of anything) did not exist in the distant past and they only came into being slowly over time, barring mass-extinction events, which ended many lines of evolution and basically started over from simpler forms.
now if you can come up with a theory that explains the known evidence better than evolution theory, you're welcome to publish your theories and see how your peers view them.
07 Dec 11
Originally posted by VoidSpiritI would like to point out to you that you have to accept the 'explanation' and
it's no belief system.. i accept it as the best possible explanation until someone can provide a better one. forget about special creation, it just doesn't fit the evidence at all, in any way.
[quote]
I was talking about both creatures and various features each creature shares
as well. An eye for example in today's life forms we see that some hav ...[text shortened]... volution theory, you're welcome to publish your theories and see how your peers view them.
you do so because you believe it to be true. Your taking your beliefs and using
them to build your world view, you are walking out your faith.
I happen to believe special creation does fit what we see around us better
than the theory that there was nothing, then something, the something went
through a big bang, and everything expanded and evolved till we see what
we see today, without cause.
A lot of creatures that share RNA-DNA could be by design too you simply use
what work.
Kelly
07 Dec 11
Originally posted by KellyJayWhats interesting though is that you do accept common descent for some creatures (such as dogs and wolves). Where did you get that belief from?
A lot of creatures that share RNA-DNA could be by design too you simply use
what work.
You only ever dispute common descent when it appears to conflict with your religion.
07 Dec 11
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayHere's one for you Kelly - When the flood was over, how did all the animals and dinosaurs get back to their respective continents?
I would like to point out to you that you have to accept the 'explanation' and
you do so because you believe it to be true. Your taking your beliefs and using
them to build your world view, you are walking out your faith.
I happen to believe special creation does fit what we see around us better
than the theory that there was nothing, then something, ...[text shortened]... A lot of creatures that share RNA-DNA could be by design too you simply use
what work.
Kelly
And secondly, why can't you accept theistic evolution like numerous other Christians? That way you don't have believe 'everything came from nothing'.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
07 Dec 11
Originally posted by Proper Knoberm, just to be clear, neither evolution, nor any scientists ever, claims that anything came
Here's one for you Kelly - When the flood was over, how did all the animals and dinosaurs get back to their respective continents?
And secondly, why can't you accept theistic evolution like numerous other Christians? That way you don't have believe 'everything came from nothing'.
from nothing let alone everything came from nothing.
Theists on the other hand do believe such nonsense. God poofing things into existence from
nothing, as well as sometimes god itself.
07 Dec 11
Originally posted by VoidSpiritDo you know the reason for the DNA-RNA?
it's no belief system.. i accept it as the best possible explanation until someone can provide a better one. forget about special creation, it just doesn't fit the evidence at all, in any way.
[quote]
I was talking about both creatures and various features each creature shares
as well. An eye for example in today's life forms we see that some hav ...[text shortened]... volution theory, you're welcome to publish your theories and see how your peers view them.
07 Dec 11
Originally posted by Proper Knob********BUMPED for Galveston*********
It meant that Neanderthals were not too dissimilar to us. A lot of humans, read religious people, think we are so very special because we are so far removed from the rest of life on this planet. This is mainly because our evolutionary branch has been broken, we are the last remaining relics of the Homo genus. Neanderthals were so like us some of u ...[text shortened]... you reconcile the discovery of Neanderthal DNA in the human genome with your religious beliefs?
Now back to my question, how do you reconcile the discovery of Neanderthal DNA in the human genome with your religious beliefs?
08 Dec 11
Originally posted by RJHindsyou need to express your question more specifically. if you mean the reason there is RNA/DNA then your question is a fallacy since there does not need to be a reason. if you instead mean the process in which DNA/RNA are created, then you'll need to (gasp!) pick up some books on the subject.
Do you know the reason for the DNA-RNA?