The Biblical text gives one diameter. The author then says that’s not the real diameter but makes up an “inner” perimeter which will give him the radius that he wants. It’s a clever argument, but it’s not really based on the text. His own radius is an invention. The text is fiction, after all. The truth is that the author of I Kings didn’t know what pi was and was using approximations.
And the wall thickness. At least try to read the whole thing before you go shooting your mouth off:
Please excuse me for wading into this thread, I didn’t read every post yet and I just had to reply to Der Trihs. He is the one I have so much hope for. There is no one else on this forum that is more like what I picture the Apostle Paul to have been like before his eyes were opened!
There is a saying, The best Christian’s were the biggest non-believers! The bible is full of disbelievers, There was only one perfect man ever! For all time! Amen!
That is a very narrow minded statement. Religion works. If you had an open mind you would see the results of religion all around you also. But hey, if you want to live your life hating anything and everything pertaining to the Lord that is your choice. Why Its Biblical!
[/QUOTE]
The debate SHOULD be polarized. And they ARE incompatible. Religion is by nature hostile to everything but itself; science is by nature hostile to delusions and irrationality, which is all religion is. People can only “view both highly” by the exercise of strong compartmentalisation, self delusion, and by carefully avoiding any scientific activity that will force you to confront the reality of how wrong your religion is.
[/QUOTE]
The only absolute hostile dispute is not with science, it is with Darwin. And that of course can never be accepted no matter how hard your fantasies want it to be right. It just isn’t. AMEN Brother, but we love you anyway:)
[/QUOTE]
It’s not “arrogance”; it’s the simple truth. Science has overwhelming evidence on the matter of evolution’; religion has none for it’s fantasies. If someone buys into creationism, they are at best “stupid or willfully ignorant”.
[/QUOTE]
Its called "Faith" Brother.
And I have never seen any credible evidence of*** Macro Evolution.***
[/QUOTE]
No one is saying that we should give science a free pass. But it should be taken far more seriously than religion, because science has a record of success. As opposed to religion, which is relentlessly wrong.
[/QUOTE]
Just how did mankind survive all this time with so little science? Sure there have been incredible advancements in the last 2 centuries, I for one love science and But I love the Lord Much More.
And what a break us Christians are giving you that believe in millions of years. Did your sorcerers and magicians keep you alive after you crawled out from under that, (put whatever it is you feel fits the picture as I surly can’t as I believe in Creation).:dubious:
[/QUOTE]
Even if you know nothing else, the fact that a claim is religious in nature should be enough tho discredit it, given that religion is so obsessively wrong, and it’s followers so willing to lie for the faith. That’s not scientific evidence of course, but “religion is always wrong in any dispute on a matter of fact” is a principle that will seldom if ever lead you wrong.
[/QUOTE]
The bible is full of dates and time lines that are absolutely accurate. any discrepancy’s are only in interpretation.
[/QUOTE]
Because Christianity is much stronger here both on a personal and social level. So more people feel more strongly obligated to deny reality, and are much less likely to be laughed at for doing so.
[/QUOTE]
A good Christian has nothing to worry about. Being laughed at would not matter. We would pray for the soul of the non-believer.
;
[/QUOTE]
the Bible claims that Pi is 3 in one passage. There’s been several attempts to write it into law.
[/QUOTE]
When measurements were done in cubits 3 wasn’t to bad. And that was an ID measurement of a huge wide rimmed (2 handwidths) brass bowl.
I found a few things interesting to this pi bit. When I did a Strong’s concordance search for the word handbreadth it doesn’t list it in the I Kings 7:26, although it is in my KJV. So it looks like Strong’s missed it here, but does show it in II Chronicles 4:5.
I am curious about a few things about this definition of handbreadth and when did it get the exact measurement of 4 inches? The Hebrew word showed is tephach and there is no mathematical measurement used, only to say it is a palm-breadth. One google search shows it to be between 8cm and 9.6 cm. Not sure what others show just yet, but I’ll look some more. For now though, it appears some apologist put in the four inch figure, and measured the radius instead of the circumference to make this fit.
Also, in my parallel Bible it shows in the Living Bible handbreadth as 5 inches in the Chonicles pericope in vs 5, but in I Kings it shows 4 inches in 7:26 thick using the same word.
razncain
Sure I do. Gaza, for instance. To be more serious, do you see any difference between the results from your religion and from any others?
Science works even if you don’t have an open mind. Whether or not you believe in semiconductor physics, your microprocessor still works. No faith required.
You quote things with [ quote ] in front and [ /quote ] behind (no spaces.) You can also highlight the section and use the word balloon icon.
As for evolution and Darwin, before we begin please let us know what you think evolution is all about. Because Darwin or no Darwin, evolution happens.
Then I can only assume you have been closing your eyes, because there is tons. But again, please tell us what you think this term means.
Most of mankind didn’t. Man died of starvation in famines, of diseases that are now conquered, and as children. Science is the thing that increased our life expectancy. Science gives us food to eat. Jesus said that there were demons, science finds the chemical imbalances responsible for psychotic behavior. Religion might have comforted a dying person, but science made that dying person a living person.
How did we survive before science? How do animals survive in the woods and jungles? Primitive science, observing that picking the strongest crops for seeds yields better crops the next harvest, led to agriculture. And is, of course, nothing but evolution.
It’s true because it’s true, and it talking about nonexistent events is “interpretation?” If you didn’t have a Bible, and created a timeline based only on history, do you think it would be the same? Answer - it would be nothing like the Bible. Though of course the kings near the time it was actually written are more accurately portrayed than mythical characters like Moses.
Gathering up more information on the Hebrew word used for handbreadth. This cite puts a handbreadth at about 3 inches.
From this cite it says this:
There are actually not very many using the 4 inch figure, although I did find one other cite that went with it. I’m sure there would be others.
Regardless, a brief googling shows there is no general consensus of an exact figure.
razcain
For shame Der. You were making claims about all religions: that was the empirical claim that I was responding to. Upthread, I made a conflicting claim about certain branches of Buddhism, which you ignored.
In general, unsubstantiated claims are worth squat.
The Bible is an anthology: I don’t recall any Old Testament claims that it is eyewitness news and I don’t know of any New Testament claims that the book in its entirety is absolutely true. (This isn’t surprising, as the Bible was put together well after 100AD.)
Shakespeare’s historical plays, OTOH, presented actual historical rulers such as Richard III in a way that was politically biased and largely propagandistic.
The difference of course is that while there are many Biblical fundamentalists today, there are no Shakespearean fundamentalists.
Regarding post 130, it seems that we are in sync for the purposes of this thread.
Where we differ is with regards to the exact degree of tension between science and faith. More generally, this bleeds into the agnosticism vs. atheism debate. But methinks that’s for another thread or three. Looking ahead, I’ll observe and concede that there’s a degree of political expediency involved in the separate realm argument. Also, more than one westerner has characterized Buddhism as more a philosophy than a religion: IMHO that says more about western conceptions of the same than anything else. Furthermore, did Confucius or the founder of Taoism claim supernatural support? (I don’t know the answer to that, incidentally.)
Don’t you see how asking a question like that is non-productive? I haven’t offered you a worldview based on falsehoods and illogic. In fact, I haven’t offered you my worldview at all. What I did was to comment on how unscientific your generalities are. Try writing a true sentence in response to what I actually say.
Did you not read my earlier post where I wrote that I value science and the scientific process? What do I have to do to get through to you? *I believe in evolution. *
Yes I do. You don’t seem to care whether you know the truth or not.
Are you talking about me? You sound more indoctrinated than fundamentalists. What you are saying is just babble that means nothing to me. I’m not trying to insult you, but I don’t have any idea what you mean when you say that a belief system is jealous.
So you are going to put all of religion into one big wad and claim that science has shown it to be wrong? That doesn’t work. Where’s the proof that there is no God?
Besides, the subject was your statements. If you are so pro-science and pro-logic, then I expect your statements to at least be as logical as mine. Try writing some sentences that deal with reality and truth – not venom and hatred. If you want to talk about my beliefs, you will have to know my beliefs. If you speak about what Christians believe, you had better be specific about which Christian group holds those beliefs. If not, you will be very unscientific and illogical in your comments.
Of possible interest: The Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences (at Berkley)
Where is the proof there is no Santa Claus? The trouble is there is no evidence for God. So you, and all theists who have questioned their beliefs at some point, decided to accept the rather unlikely notion of a theistic force for no reason other than you wanted to. Choosing to believe in God is an irrational act. Religions are irrational. All of them. You can’t point to the lack of negative evidence to shore up the belief in something with no evidence.
Not to mention that Santa Claus is much more likely than God, because he’s at least a physical being. 
That’s not actually true. Many Creationists (as I assume you are), particularly young-earth creationists, must also reject the evidence for the Big Bang, stellar evolution (lifecycles), much of genetics (e.g. the concept of junk DNA), geology and tectonics, archaeology, planetary formation, cosmology, as well as all the evolutionary science not developed by Darwin. This is just off the top of my head, there’s a lot more.
The division is not between macro and micro evolution. It is between science that contradicts a creationist’s belief and science that doesn’t. Creationists will always find some excuse to embrace the latter and condemn the former.
They are. That you don’t understand them isn’t DT’s fault.
Throughout much of our history the church and science coexisted in comfort. The philosophers, educators and transcribers of books were a church controlled enterprises. During the dark ages ,nearly all the learning was done under the church. It was a well respected and awe inspiring force in the world.
But when scientists and thinkers (Galileo,Copernicus etc) arrived at knowledge that might chip away at accepted church dogma, they were punished. Oppression and punishment for learning is wrong . Once you question the actions of the church ,which you blindly accepted before ,the questions keep on coming. If they are wrong in punishing free thinking, what else are they wrong about? The whole edifice just crumbles into a petty little defensive tirade of suppression.
Scientists are just doing what people are naturally driven to, exploring and understanding the world. The church has made itself an obstacle in the natural progression and evolution of man. That can not end well for the church. They were wrong to do it. It cost them credibility and put them on the dark side of mans attempt to illuminate the world.
I think you are part right, but there is no need to go back several hundred years to determine what is happening today. When I was young science and religion got along very well, in fact most scientists believed in God. That has changed with the emerging atheist organizations and their attack on religion. Most scientists are now atheist and believe in the theories of science about the beginning of the universe and man. There is nothing wrong with this until the attacks on religion became more prevalent and nasty. As Richard Dawkins preaching that science must destroy religion. As well as numerous other atheists taking up the flag. So it is only natural that religion is fighting back. I have seen posted on this board religion be called nonsense, mythology, dangerous, lies, and many other names. Why would religion not fight back. The really sad thing is that none of the science about the beginnings of life, and the earth are provable. It has to be taken on faith as the religious take their doctrine. It will end someday, with religion winning, because we humans are spiritual and no matter how much that is denied it will never cease to be so.
Zoe, you shouldn’t believe in evolution. There is no need for belief. There is so much evidence that it should be convincing without an iota of faith or belief. I know this may seem like a quibble, but it is at the heart of the difference between science and religion. When you believe in something, it is often hard to change. When you accept something based on evidence, it is much easier to change your views in the face of new evidence. Scientists, being human, don’t necessarily do this, but it is the ideal.
What about the Scopes Monkey Trial?
Shouldn’t religion be honest and admit to the liklihood that it contains falsehhods? After all, if there are 100 religions, then at least 99 of them are wrong.
What scientific conclusions are you actually disputing? And why? Whatever they are, there is no doubt a lot of evidence for them and therefor there is a high probabliity that they are correct. That’s not faith.
What’s that got to do with the truth? And predicting that your viewpoint wi ll eventually win is not much of an argument.
So just because you can’t see it, it doesn’t exist? Good thing you’re taking oxygen on faith, then.
Well, that’s not an issue for me. I believe God has a body.
I can admit I don’t know all the physical laws, and I’m going be just presumptuous enough to say you don’t, either. We don’t know everything yet and I’m reluctant to say the speed of light is the absolute upper speed limit in the universe. The jury is still out on that one.
I’ve heard of this. I’ve heard speculation on it, but I don’t have a comment for this.
I had never heard of this before, but I found this, which tried to explain it. I didn’t analyze it, my attention span is burned out after the first day back at school after a week off.
You want me to write your answers for you? You’re the one who made the statement
and when I asked
you say you can hardly answer that. If you’re going to make such generalizations about how I’m phasing out of reality because I believe in God, the least you can do is come up with some examples. Otherwise you’re just talking to hear yourself talk.
Again, please condescend to enlighten me: how does my belief in an afterlife mean that I’m rejecting reality? So I believe I’ll see my loved ones in a wonderful place after this life is over. Does that mean that I don’t value my daily life, or that I contribute less to my community than non-believers?
You can call religious faith a delusion all you like, but don’t even try to accuse me of rejecting reality.
Once again, we have a wholly unsubstantiated claim.
Please explain how Confucianism, Taoism, Secular Buddhism, Scientology (kidding!), Secular Humanism and the Ethical Cultural Society are irrational.
More seriously,
IIRC, according to the Therevada school, while there is a Heaven, the Buddha received no special insight from it. Indeed, Heaven can’t help you attain Nirvana.
True, the Buddha was allegedly challenged by a devil at one point (as well as certain worldly temptations such as love and family), but he wasn’t conveying a message from beyond. The Buddha discovered and worked out his doctrine on his own.
Is this how your science works, you don’t believe a believer believes?
[COLOR=“Red”]This is from my post;[/COLOR]
The big Bang you believe in is just a humanistic religion
Why. I believe in science. Its the power of God. The more science has reviled, the more of God’s Greatness is reviled.
I worked 34 years in the Iron mines, Why would I not believe in what put a roof over my head and food on the table. That is why I thank the Lord. He created the Heavens and the Earth. 
I have a question for you.
If you were to be nominated for a darwin award, what would that award be representative of?
GBro: "Why. I believe in science. Its the power of God. The more science has reviled, the more of God’s Greatness is reviled.
I worked 34 years in the Iron mines, Why would I not believe in what put a roof over my head and food on the table. That is why I thank the Lord. He created the Heavens and the Earth.
I have a question for you.
If you were to be nominated for a darwin award, what would that award be representative of?
http://darwinawards.com/darwin/darwin2008-08.html
[/QUOTE]
Roof over your head. I certainly hope you mean the mine you worked in.
Men built your house, you earned money
and bought the house, the food, the fridge (hopefully).
No one needs to sell themselves short.