Uh, jab, I’m afraid not. In non-Euclidean systems, by definition, circles may have ratios of circumference to diameter of more or less than pi. That’s partly what a non-Euclidean system is, as a matter of fact.
See here a Java applet comparing a Euclidean and non-Euclidean circle.
Here is the formula for calculating the area of a circle in hyperbolic trigonometry.
Similarly, in Riemannian geometry (a non-Euclidean system) the interior angles of a triangle always add up to more than 180 degrees. That doesn’t make it any less a triangle.
Shes got it right and wrong. The earth is only 6 thousand years old. And God created it in 6 literal days. I noticed some postings talking about odds. What evolutionists don’t tell you that its not 1 chance in millions and millions of billions that life came about but actually when that 1 chance happens then theres a next step which is another 1 chance in millions and millions of billions. And all the next steps which run in the millions after that have the same odds. Which means zero. So the person that said “its not impossible” is wrong. Those odds are impossible. If you want odds that God created life? Its 1 out of 2. What odds do you want?
Second point, most evolutionists know that DNA just doesn’t create itself so the new evolutionary thinking is that “a god-like” being put advanced DNA into the primordially slude of earth and the destructive power of the earth widled down the DNA to what we find in us low lifes of bad DNA. I discussed this with Arthur C. Clarke who is large in the evolutionists ranks. They are coming just short of now saying that God must have put us here because evolution doesn’t happen but the won’t admit to the God of the Bible. The evolutionists don’t like making this known because its another OOPs in the long lists of guesses they been making about our origin.
Let’s say I just farted. What are the odds that I would have farted? Well, let’s go back just a bit to when I ate lunch. Odds maybe 1 in 2. Now let’s go gack to this morning when I thought about lunch. Odd’s maybe 1 in 4. Now yesterday. Odds 1 in 10. Now last week. Odds 1 in 100000. Now a year ago. Odds what, maybe 1 in 1000000. Go back to my birth. Odds astronomical. Go back to Thomas Jefferson’s birth. Odds incomprehensible. Go back to primordal earth. Odds impossible.
Well, the numbers are 10 and 30. Could be the author rounded off. But that concept might be a little heavy for you. So the whole universe will be unraveled because a circle with pi of 3 is in the bible? Is this Dogma? Are you on crack? Why does that even matter?
Besides that, the cubit is not a standard of measurement on the scale of the meter, back then it was whoever’s arm length, maybe one guy measured across and another around. maybe one estimated because he didn’t want to fall in. i wouldn’t want to fall in, and i don’t even know what we are measuring. Nor do i care because it is a stupid argument. try a real “philosical” argument, not some technical tripe.
I confess that I have never studied non-Euclidean geometry. How does it apply in the real world? How do you build a cistern (or anything else) in the shape of a non-Euclidean circle?
The surface of the earth is a sphere, so if you drew a big enough triangle, the sum of the angles would be greater than 180 degrees. I’m not as familiar as I should be, so I can’t give many more examples.
Hmmm…I would say that all four of those sentences are false.
First: Most evolutionists don’t deal with how DNA came into being. That’s abiogenesis, and falls outside the realm of evolutionary mechanics to describe. Evolutionists do, however, deal with how DNA has changed over time.
Second: Arthur C. Clarke is not “large in the evolutionists ranks.” I’ve read quite a bit on the subject, and have yet to see any mention of Mr. Clarke in this context, much less to have read any primary literature by him on the topic.
Third: Evolutionists, when speaking as scientists, say nothing about what God may, or may not, have done (beyond that fact that whatever he may, or may not, have done is unprovable in any scientific manner). Evolutionists as individuals, however, do. Oh, and evolution does happen.
Fourth: Evolutionists are not, contrary to popular creationist belief, hiding anything. If they find something, they make it known. Nor is what you describe anything resembling an “oops” made by evolutionists. An “oops” made by young-earth conspiracy-creationists who don’t understand science, much less evolution, perhaps…
Actually, it might make more sense to ask how Euclidean geometry applies in the real world. Assuming for the sake of argument that earth is in the real world, there is nary a straight line to be found anywhere in, on, or around it.
The Bible describes a “brim” around the container. There’s your .14 to make your PI. If thats the only drivel you can find in the Bible then its still superior to the ever changing guessing going on with the evolutionists.
Darwins finch
to your responses
1 Yes evolutionists do “deal” with how DNA came into being. It may not come up much because it only works against them in debates. Can’t have humans without it. And humans are here. Their way of getting is a whole lot more complicated and only works on guessing and fantasy whereas creation is simple and obvious. Check the laws of thermodynamics.
2 Apparently you haven’t read enough evoultionary books, other than your high school biology book because he named dropped a dozen evolutionary scientists that he worked closely with.
3 Evolutionists have eliminated all ideas of God IN THE PAST. You’re definitely out of touch with the new evolutionary thinking. Can’t get around tendency of things to break down therefore new evolutionary thought is a “god-like creature” put highly developed DNA material in early earth. You need to keep up with new evolutionary ideas. Their ideas change more than I change my underwear. Funny creation truth has always stayed the same. Unlike evolutionists.
4 Evolutionists don’t hide anything??? That always make things know?? What a farce! Tell that to the people who made up fake cave-men. Then is not one substantiated case of a human link to monkeys. Look it up they’ve all been hoaxes lies or actual monkeys. Cro-mag and neaderthal turns out are your modern man skeletons. Evolutionists admit that much. Sure they make everything known. Its just that its all lies and fantasies.
You want science. Go to Institute for creation research web or answers in genesis web page. I don’t know what century you’re living in but the creationists are the only ones making ground breaking scientific work in botany, astronomy, physiology, etc. Then again I know you won’t because you wouldn’t want your house of cards of belief in evolution to crumble.
The “made up” cave men fall into a few easily identified categories: Examples such as Piltdown that were clearly a hoax and were never used by evolutionary scientists as exemplars even before the hoax was discovered, Nebraska Man that was a brief speculation regarding a tooth that was correctly identified in fewer than nine months from its discovery, although Creationist authors continue to print the lie that this “pig’s tooth” was part of the Evolutionary Theory, and Java and Peking and a few other jaws and skulls that appear to be exactly what the evolutionary scientists have claimed them to be (with minor adjustments to classification based on new information).
I do wish the more extreme Creationists would remember that Bearing False Witness is still prohibited in the original Ten Commandments.
Now if you could show us the passage in the Bible that deals with the measurement of this “brim”, we can put this silly “evolution” stuff behind us, right?
Yes, but those “guesses” are very accurate and explain a lot. The minute somebody else comes up with something better, we’ll reconsider.
Sorry, my friend. You’re just wrong on this one. The origin of DNA has nothing to do with evolution. Whether God put it there or it spontaneously arose, evolution occured afterwards. And I think you should check the laws of thermodynamics. The second law states that entropy increases globally in a closed system. The earth isn’t a closed system because of the sun, and entropy can decrease locally while increasing globally.
So? Even if he is an authority, his statements have to stand on their own merits. Why don’t you provide us with a few quotes (along with their sources) and we’ll talk about those.
Progress does involve change. The fundamental ideas haven’t changed in 150 years, and if you’re comparing those to your underwear changing rate, I think you might want to speed it up a bit. Oh, and as for these new evolutionary ideas? Cite, please.
And the people who corrected them were other scientists. Scientists are human and do make mistakes from time to time, but it’s not the creationists who correct them.
**
Again, you’re wrong. Creationists do nothing but attempt to discredit evolution, thinking that their view is the necessary alternative. They’re wrong on that too. But if you insist on disagreeing, provide us with some examples (and citations) of their “groundbreaking work”.
1 I can’t believe you would use Java man as an actual link. Dubois, who found a skull and femur, was not a geologist or a paleontologist. The skull was a normal HUMAN skull just slightly smaller than neaderthal. His problem was his dating method. He chose a random place in geological column which turned out to conflict with evolutionists ideas on ancestery. When questioned about his reports, the bones and his dating methods, he hid all his paperwork and put his bones into hiding. Dubois before his death declared that all he truly found was nothing more than a giant Gibbon. Not a very reliable “cave-man” to attack me with. You should have done your homework.
2 Peking man is another flop for you. Skull pieces and 3 teeth were found. The skull pieces disappeared (imagine that) after ww2. Later reports from original scientists claim it was more monkey than human. But the clincher was that modern human bones were found in the same site.
So much for me bearing false witness. The same can’t be said for you.
1 What accuracy are you talking about? There isn’t a real evolutionist that would make that statement.
2 Evolution came after what? You mean full human dna was in first cell. Just magically appeared. Evolution insists that simple dna evolved into complex DNA. And your cloed system gets tossed around unfortunately you can’t test that. What WE OBSERVE!!! mind you ( not fantasy and make believe) is things tend to disorder. Evolutionists admit that.
3The fundemental idea of no God hasn’t changed. But everything else has. Vestigial organs, embryo recapitulation, geological column dating, evolutionary tree
4 You apparently don’t know the numbers of creation scientists. They number in the thousands and continually are there to refute the hogwash the evolutionists push. Why do evolutionists continually refuse debates??? THEY CAN’t WIN!
5 Why wouldn’t creationists refute evolution?? ITS WRONG. THEY’RE LYING to people. Souls are at stake.
Wernher von Braun- leading scientist in US space program
Kelvin -Temperature
Einstein-relativity
Sir isaac newton-gravity thermodynamics
Russel humpreys- star light and time
You seem to be talking to one. Care to explain exactly what you mean here?
We don’t yet know how the first DNA appeared. After it appeared, evolution occurred. It wasn’t full human DNA, or even cells just yet. We don’t know much about exactly how this happened, but we know it did happen.
We observe that a tremendous amount of energy comes into the earth from the sun. Therefore, it’s not a closed system.
Atheism has never been a central tenet of evolution. Vestigial organs, embryo recapitulation, geological column dating, and the evolutionary tree are all details of the theory. The central idea is that all organisms derive from a common ancestor by means of random variation and natural selection. This has not changed.
The number of creation “scientists” is irrelevant. If 3 billion people decide to push the idea of a flat earth tomorrow, that doesn’t make it any more correct.
Evolutionists refuse to debate with creationists because creationists are known to stack the odds in their favor, and have not been above lying from time to time. Still, some debates do occur, and scientists have won.
Even if all these people accepted special creation (and I guarantee you Einstein didn’t, as general relativity necessitates a very old universe), their authority is meaningless here. The facts are the only things that are relevant.
Citations are also important–you have to explain where you got your information from. I realize that I haven’t provided anything of that nature yet, but I’ve got class in a short time and am in something of a hurry. I promise that I will dig up my sources later on. Meanwhile, you might want to look at talkorigins.org and the evolution/creation forum at infidels.org.
Don’t you have a grammar and spelling class to be in?