Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Creation VS Evolution Survey Now Complete

28 views
Skip to first unread message

Roscoe A. Sincero

unread,
May 29, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/29/96
to Tyler Gunn, tg...@mbnet.mb.ca, leg...@eng.umd.edu

On Mon, 27 May 1996, Tyler Gunn wrote:

(My reply posted and mailed.)

> <Note: This is a mass form letter email sent to all 69 people who participated in my survey>
>
> First of all, I'd like to thank you for answering the survey I posted on the web a few weeks back. The survey is complete, and I've finished my final english project. All in all 69 people responded to my survey in the 2 weeks it was online. If you are interested in seeing my english paper, I have made it available online at the following URL:
> <http://www.mbnet.mb.ca/~tgunn/CreEvProj/creev.html>
> The formatting isn't too pretty because I simply exported it using the HTML filter in my word processor; but the information is there none the less.
>
> Thanks again,
> tg...@mbnet.mb.ca
>
>

I scanned the results of your survey. It is somewhat biased for
evolution. Reason: Of the 69 respondents, 21 were atheists. A good rule
of thumb would be that atheists, in general, would not support
creationism. The percentage of atheists in Canada and the US is small,
maybe around 10% or so for Canada and less than that in the US. I recall
reading a figure that around 83% of Americans belong to some sort of
organized Christian denomination. THis does not include those Christian
Cult groups, Jews, Muslims, Hinduses, or any other religion.

I have noticed that you included a correct definition of evolution. I
also did my own survey (before it was deleted). I was able to post the
results when about 22 people participated. Before it was deleted, over
70 participated. The survey was only up for less than 1 week. I think
the BBS had problems with the HD or something.

Anyways, of the 22 people who responded on the proper definition of
evolution, only 1 realize that a population of a given species evolve.
All the others believed that individuals evolved. (They were confused,
however, if individual animals evolved or individual species evolved.
Wierd. So around half pick animals the others pick species.) The result
is actually worse. I also participated in my own survey so guess who was
the one person. Before my survey was removed, I noticed that the number
increased to, I think, 3 or 5.

This gross amount of ignorance would have affected your result since most
people did not know the meaning of one of your choices. How can people
accept evolution if they do not know what it is? This is also the reason
that creationists are able to KNOWINGLY spread lies about evolution since
they know that only a few will catch them. And even if they were caught,
explaining how they lied or what they lied about requires knowledge among
those who are listening. Such knowledge is non-existent as my survey
showed.

As indicated in the past, indivuduals like Judd Vance would lie about
evolution and thermodynamics while at the same time claim that he is not
a creationist. Mark Nandor would claim that there is no evidence for
speciation and try to rewrite the Bible (ie. Genesis 6:3) to support
their beliefs while at the same time claim that he never said he
supported creationism. Nandor was using the old evidence for
micro-evolution/no evidence for macro-evolution argument. The difference
is that "macro-evolution" is referred to as speciation in his argument.

Karl Crawford like Nandor wish to rewrite the Bible by claiming that Gen
6:3 states that Noah has 120 years to build the ark. Gen 6:3 does not say
such a thing. Moreover Gen 7:4 states that Noah had only a 7 days
warning. Crawford never made a response to that but Nandor claims that
the idea that Noah had only 7 days to build the ark is stupid. He is
simply trying to create a smokescreen. Gen 7:4 does not support their
"interpretations" of the Bible. It is even worse than this. Both Crawford
and Nandor wanted us to believe that the questionable English translations
of the original Hebrew texts allows them to make these new "translations".
We have to take their word for it that their translations of the Hebrew
texts is the correct one. Or in Nandor's case, the most probable one.

These are just only three examples of deceptions made by creationists.
They do this knowingly for the simple fact that most people do not have
the background to realize that these fools are lying. That is what my
survey showed. These people are simply taking advantage of the ignorant
to boost their little ego. Read my editorial at
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/1761/edit.html for more examples
of blatant deception on the part of creationists.

And one more thing, you should have advertised your survey in a large
number of groups, not just in talk.origins. That way you will get more
participants and a more accurate portrayal of the demographics.


==========================================================================
Roscoe A. Sincero
B.S. Chemical Engineering, May 1993 University of Maryland College Park
Job Seeker
e-mail: leg...@eng.umd.edu
WWW: http://www.glue.umd.edu/~legion
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/1761

Honorary Faculty Member of University of Ediacara
- Professor of Creative Non Sequitur Engineering
- Thomas Barnes Chair of Philosophy

Research Interests: Analytical Modelling of Rectum Tunneling Effect on
the Creationist Mind and Its Effect on the Second Law

Second Law Efficiency of Nostril Mining and Digging In
Relation to Creationist Thought Processes


Robert D. Clark

unread,
May 29, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/29/96
to

[Much interesting stuff deleted, read it for yourself]

Although the survey was informative, I'm a little iffy about subjecting
science to a popular vote, although I know that was not the intent.

Evolution, as a concept of differentiation and speciation over time is an
established fact. The EXACT mechanisms of that change are less well
established.

Creationists want us to accept the Bible as the literal word of God,
invariant and unerring. And yet...there is a glaring, and obvious,
error-of-fact in the "literal word of God". In Second Chronicles, second
verse, fourth chapter, a cauldron is described: "Also he made the molten
sea of TEN CUBITS from brim to brim, ROUND in compass, and the height
thereof was five cubits, and a line of THIRTY CUBITS did compass it ROUND
ABOUT."[caps mine]

Now we all know that pi= circ./diam.= 22/7= 3 1/7= 3.14...
The Bible states pi= 30/10= 3.0

IF the "literal word of God" is in KNOWN error at one point, THEN it is
possible that it is in error at MORE than one point. THEREFORE, ANY
attempt to state that evolution is impossible because "The Bible says so!"
is arguing from an untenable base, since the Bible is demonstrably NOT
"unerring".

No time/space wasting sig with a cutesy political philosphy....
Now isn't THAT a thrill?

Natalie Overstreet

unread,
May 29, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/29/96
to

Note followups. They have been rather vastly trimmed. (It's probably
*still* too many, but it's better.)

Robert D. Clark (rdc...@avalon.net) wrote:

[snip]
: Creationists want us to accept the Bible as the literal word of God,


: invariant and unerring. And yet...there is a glaring, and obvious,
: error-of-fact in the "literal word of God". In Second Chronicles, second
: verse, fourth chapter, a cauldron is described: "Also he made the molten
: sea of TEN CUBITS from brim to brim, ROUND in compass, and the height
: thereof was five cubits, and a line of THIRTY CUBITS did compass it ROUND
: ABOUT."[caps mine]

AAAAAAACK! Not *this* old chestnut again....

: Now we all know that pi= circ./diam.= 22/7= 3 1/7= 3.14...


: The Bible states pi= 30/10= 3.0

It is unjustified to assume that the Bible's figures of ten and
thirty cubits are accurate to more than one significant digit.
(In other words, you must assume that the measurements are rounded
to the nearest ten cubits.) And behold: When you round pi to
one significant digit, it is indeed 3. The Biblical equation you
cite above is indeed incorrect; however, the Bible doesn't really
say that. What the Bible *does* say is that pi is 30/10 = 3.
*Not* 3.0. And that statement is accurate to one significant digit,
the same degree of accuracy in the original measurement.

Or, you could look at it another way. A molten sea thirty cubits
in circumference would, using pi = 3.14, have a diameter of 9.55
cubits. Or, to the nearest integer, 10 cubits.

Besides which, even if the Bible had used 31.4 cubits for the
circumference, you could always complain that it had not used
31.4159..... ad infinitum. Even if the Bible is inerrant (which
I personally do not accept), it's unreasonable to expect it to
contain an infinite amount of accuracy for pi.

[snip]

Blessings,
Natalie
(who *really* wishes folk would read the atheism FAQs at
<http://freethought.tamu.edu/news/atheism> before posting
things we've heard a thousand times before...)

--
*** I don't speak for HP *** *** fight breast cancer ***
WARNING! This is an UNCENSORED copy of Natalie's signature! Transmitting
this signature could be in violation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
Free Speech Online Blue Ribbon Campaign: http://www.eff.org/blueribbon.html


david shobe

unread,
May 29, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/29/96
to

Robert D. Clark (rdc...@avalon.net) wrote:
: [Much interesting stuff deleted, read it for yourself]


: Creationists want us to accept the Bible as the literal word of God,
: invariant and unerring. And yet...there is a glaring, and obvious,
: error-of-fact in the "literal word of God". In Second Chronicles, second
: verse, fourth chapter, a cauldron is described: "Also he made the molten
: sea of TEN CUBITS from brim to brim, ROUND in compass, and the height
: thereof was five cubits, and a line of THIRTY CUBITS did compass it ROUND
: ABOUT."[caps mine]

: Now we all know that pi= circ./diam.= 22/7= 3 1/7= 3.14...


: The Bible states pi= 30/10= 3.0

I had heard that some state passed a law which attempted to set pi = 3
--I suppose it was at the insistence of fundamentalists!

But seriously, to the number of significant figures in the measurement
the circumference is consistent with the diameter. If the diameter is
9.700 cubits, the circumference is 30.473... cubits. (And how precise
a unit of measurement was a cubit anyway?)

--David Shobe

P.S. More troubling is that the numerical figures in I,II Chronicles
often don't match those in I,II Samuel and I,II Kings. And Jesus is
given two completely different genealogies in Luke and Matthew.

On the other hand, if atheistic evolution is true then one's Purpose
In Life is simply to pass one's genes to the next generation. How
empty a philosophy!


Londo Mollari

unread,
May 29, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/29/96
to

In article <rdclark-2905...@news.avalon.net>, rdc...@avalon.net
(Robert D. Clark) wrote:

[snip]


> Now we all know that pi= circ./diam.= 22/7= 3 1/7= 3.14...
> The Bible states pi= 30/10= 3.0
>

> IF the "literal word of God" is in KNOWN error at one point, THEN it is
> possible that it is in error at MORE than one point. THEREFORE, ANY
> attempt to state that evolution is impossible because "The Bible says so!"
> is arguing from an untenable base, since the Bible is demonstrably NOT
> "unerring".

Oh come on. Only the most nutty and extreme biblical fundamentalist
or an extremely petty non-believer going for a cheap-shot would
say the the Bible says the pi=3.

They did not have micrometers or any sort of extremely accure
measuring devices in Biblical times. They clearly crudely
stated that something was x long as opposed to 3.7898403798755435434535
long. The section in question is not a math text but a record on
how big various things were. Assuming that Mr. Clark knows about
the concept of significant figures...It is not correct to take
two number given to a single digit precision, divide them, and
go anything beyond a single digit. From this point of view,
this "biblical" estimate of pi is quite correct. Since the measurements
were only given to a single digit, that is as much as you can get out
of your estimate of pi.

Now the Bible has loads of contradictions and inaccuracies.
So my question is why do some people feel the need to go for
such stupid cheap shots?

Please don't lower yourself to the level of the creationists
to try to fight them.

Dennis L. McKiernan

unread,
May 29, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/29/96
to

A cubit was a measure which ran anywhere from 17
to 21 inches. So, 30 cubits was close enough for
biblical work. Nevertheless, I do not accept the
bible as the literal word of anyone except the
author(s) of the various sections, whether that's
a word, line, verse, chapter, or book. Anyone
who believes (or believed) s/he has (or had) a
direct pipeline to god(s) is ___________ (fill in
the blank).
---DLMcK


Gary Petiford

unread,
May 29, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/29/96
to

On 29 May 1996 21:50:05 GMT, dsh...@unlinfo.unl.edu (david shobe)
wrote:

>Robert D. Clark (rdc...@avalon.net) wrote:
>: [Much interesting stuff deleted, read it for yourself]
>
>
>: Creationists want us to accept the Bible as the literal word of God,
>: invariant and unerring. And yet...there is a glaring, and obvious,
>: error-of-fact in the "literal word of God". In Second Chronicles, second
>: verse, fourth chapter, a cauldron is described: "Also he made the molten
>: sea of TEN CUBITS from brim to brim, ROUND in compass, and the height
>: thereof was five cubits, and a line of THIRTY CUBITS did compass it ROUND
>: ABOUT."[caps mine]
>

>: Now we all know that pi= circ./diam.= 22/7= 3 1/7= 3.14...


>: The Bible states pi= 30/10= 3.0
>

>I had heard that some state passed a law which attempted to set pi = 3
>--I suppose it was at the insistence of fundamentalists!
>
>But seriously, to the number of significant figures in the measurement
>the circumference is consistent with the diameter. If the diameter is
>9.700 cubits, the circumference is 30.473... cubits. (And how precise
>a unit of measurement was a cubit anyway?)
>
>--David Shobe
>
>P.S. More troubling is that the numerical figures in I,II Chronicles
>often don't match those in I,II Samuel and I,II Kings. And Jesus is
>given two completely different genealogies in Luke and Matthew.
>
>On the other hand, if atheistic evolution is true then one's Purpose
>In Life is simply to pass one's genes to the next generation. How
>empty a philosophy!
>

Yes, I suppose it is a bit empty, but it does seem to achieve better
results than doing mathmatical calculations using 3.0 as pi.


In the beginning the Universe was created. This has
made a lot of people very angry and been widely
regarded as a bad move.....Douglas Adams

http://www.dialnet.net/~gary/

Gary Petiford

unread,
May 29, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/29/96
to

gp

chris lindsay

unread,
May 29, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/29/96
to

Not to dismiss your argument below...

>Natalie Overstreet wrote:

> it's unreasonable to expect it [the Bible] to


> contain an infinite amount of accuracy for pi.

But if the Bible is directly the word of God, why is it unreasonable
to expect it to be infinitely accurate?

What, God doesn't know the decimal system?

Peace,
Chris

Jeff Schoner

unread,
May 29, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/29/96
to

dsh...@unlinfo.unl.edu (david shobe) wrote:


>: Now we all know that pi= circ./diam.= 22/7= 3 1/7= 3.14...
>: The Bible states pi= 30/10= 3.0

>I had heard that some state passed a law which attempted to set pi = 3
>--I suppose it was at the insistence of fundamentalists!

Not just any state, but Arkansas (I think, maybe TN or OK, somewhere
in that area). Anyways the logic lied in that pi was so complicated
that it gave schoolkids trouble. The scary thing was that the
politicians who wrote the bill really had no clue about what pi was.

>But seriously, to the number of significant figures in the measurement
>the circumference is consistent with the diameter. If the diameter is
>9.700 cubits, the circumference is 30.473... cubits. (And how precise
>a unit of measurement was a cubit anyway?)

It's just a rough estimate.
-----
Jeff Schoner
z...@primenet.com

"Those who would give up essential freedoms for security deserve neither
freedom nor security." -- Benjamin Franklin

This message has been typed on a Dvorak keybaord...


Colin Campbell

unread,
May 29, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/29/96
to

arvel.universe,alt.politics.usa.congress,alt.christnet.bible,talk.abortion,alt.blasphemy,alt.postmodern,sci.lang,alt.catastrophism,alt.fan.publius,alt.activism,alt.conspiracy,talk.atheism,alt.philosophy.debate:
Followup-To: talk.origins,sci.skeptic,alt.religion.christian,alt.politics.correct,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.christnet,talk.religion.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,rec.arts.sf.written,alt.fan.heinlein,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.folklore.urban,rec.arts.comics.

marvel.universe,alt.politics.usa.congress,alt.christnet.bible,talk.abortion,alt.blasphemy,alt.postmodern,sci.lang,alt.catastrophism,alt.fan.publius,alt.activism,alt.conspiracy,talk.atheism,alt.philosophy.debate:
References: <Pine.SOL.3.91.96052...@logo.eng.umd.edu> <rdclark-2905...@news.avalon.net> <4oigqd$k...@crcnis3.unl.edu> <4oj099$p...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>
Organization: CRL Dialup Internet Access (415) 705-6060 [Login: guest]
Distribution:

>But seriously, to the number of significant figures in the measurement
>the circumference is consistent with the diameter. If the diameter is
>9.700 cubits, the circumference is 30.473... cubits. (And how precise
>a unit of measurement was a cubit anyway?)

A cubit is the distance from your elbow to the tip of your middle
finger. Roughly half a yard, but it varies for each person, obviously.

Carl Fink

unread,
May 29, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/29/96
to

Okay, whoever did the crossposting was a jerk, but couldn't *any* of
you who responded bother to remove the obviously inappropriate groups
from the Newsgroups: line?

Followups to talk.origins ONLY.
--
Carl Fink ca...@panix.com madsci...@genie.com
Dueling Modems, Inc. http://www.sfrt.com/sfrt/

". . . stories have to end. It's what gives them meaning." -Neil Gaiman

Michael L. Siemon

unread,
May 30, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/30/96
to

In article <31ACD5...@wavenet.com>, chris lindsay <cli...@wavenet.com>
wrote:

+Not to dismiss your argument below...

No? that *seems* to be what you're doing...

+>Natalie Overstreet wrote:

+> it's unreasonable to expect it [the Bible] to
+> contain an infinite amount of accuracy for pi.

No comment; I'm not sure this is meaningful...

+But if the Bible is directly the word of God, why is it unreasonable
+to expect it to be infinitely accurate?

Because human language is not? What else does "word" mean here?

+What, God doesn't know the decimal system?

Umm, why is God supposed to "know" curious human accomodations
to finitistic constraints? Is that part of Incarnational Theology?
(in which case I will grant it :-)), or are you just waffling?
--
Michael L. Siemon m...@panix.com

"Stand, stand at the window,
as the tears scald and start;
You shall love your crooked neighbor,
with your crooked heart."


Peter Bruells

unread,
May 30, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/30/96
to

>>>>> "Jeff" == Jeff Schoner <z...@primenet.com> writes:
In article <4oj099$p...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com> z...@primenet.com (Jeff Schoner) writes:


Jeff>
> dsh...@unlinfo.unl.edu (david shobe) wrote:
David>>>

> : Now we all know that pi= circ./diam.= 22/7= 3 1/7= 3.14... :
> The Bible states pi= 30/10= 3.0

David>>>

> I had heard that some state passed a law which attempted to
> set pi = 3 --I suppose it was at the insistence of
> fundamentalists!

Jeff>

> Not just any state, but Arkansas (I think, maybe TN or OK,
> somewhere in that area). Anyways the logic lied in that pi was
> so complicated that it gave schoolkids trouble. The scary
> thing was that the politicians who wrote the bill really had no
> clue about what pi was.


From the sci.math FAQ:

"The bill ~House Bill No. 246, Indiana State Legislature, 1897~, reportedly
set the value of ~pi ~ to an incorrect rational approximation."

I only skimmed through the text, but it's my understanding that a
mathematician tried to con the senate into chiseling his loony proof
into the stone of law by granting them the right to use his discovery
in their school textbooks for free.


The whole story can be found in the "Human Interest" section of the
FAQ.

Doug Reade

unread,
May 30, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/30/96
to

lo...@uoknor.edu (Londo Mollari) wrote:
>In article <rdclark-2905...@news.avalon.net>, rdc...@avalon.net
>(Robert D. Clark) wrote:
>
>[snip]
>> Now we all know that pi= circ./diam.= 22/7= 3 1/7= 3.14...
>> The Bible states pi= 30/10= 3.0
>>


Thanks for spewing this over half of Usenet. We here at AFU don't really
have much interest in this particular survey, since it doesn't seem to
have a great deal to do with Urban Folklore, and therefore would like to
be removed from the mailing list posthaste.

However, to show our appreciation for thinking of us, we're going to send
an acquaintance of ours, named Matthew P., over to talk to you. You'll
like him; he talks your kind of language.

Dommage.

Doug "no hurry sending him back" Reade

sig wants to promote "Picard/Guynan--1996. The bald and the beautiful."


Roscoe A. Sincero

unread,
May 30, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/30/96
to

Peter Bruells (Peter....@informatik.uni-oldenburg.de) wrote:

: >>>>> "Jeff" == Jeff Schoner <z...@primenet.com> writes:
: In article <4oj099$p...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com> z...@primenet.com (Jeff Schoner) writes:


: Jeff>
: > dsh...@unlinfo.unl.edu (david shobe) wrote:
: David>>>

: > : Now we all know that pi= circ./diam.= 22/7= 3 1/7= 3.14... :


: > The Bible states pi= 30/10= 3.0

: David>>>

: > I had heard that some state passed a law which attempted to
: > set pi = 3 --I suppose it was at the insistence of
: > fundamentalists!

: Jeff>
: > Not just any state, but Arkansas (I think, maybe TN or OK,
: > somewhere in that area). Anyways the logic lied in that pi was
: > so complicated that it gave schoolkids trouble. The scary
: > thing was that the politicians who wrote the bill really had no
: > clue about what pi was.


: From the sci.math FAQ:

: "The bill ~House Bill No. 246, Indiana State Legislature, 1897~, reportedly
: set the value of ~pi ~ to an incorrect rational approximation."

: I only skimmed through the text, but it's my understanding that a
: mathematician tried to con the senate into chiseling his loony proof
: into the stone of law by granting them the right to use his discovery
: in their school textbooks for free.

IT wasn't a mathematician. I believe the guy was a medical doctor. In
any case, it was a mathematician who tried to keep the bill from
passing. And there seems to be a suggestion that the senate didn't take
the bill seriously anyway.

: The whole story can be found in the "Human Interest" section of the
: FAQ.

--

Douglas E. Berry

unread,
May 30, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/30/96
to

In article <4oigqd$k...@crcnis3.unl.edu>,
dsh...@unlinfo.unl.edu (david shobe) wrote:


>On the other hand, if atheistic evolution is true then one's Purpose
>In Life is simply to pass one's genes to the next generation. How
>empty a philosophy!

That is the physical purpose. as sentient lifeforms, we have the ability to
give ourselves a higher purpose- making the world a better place for our
decendants. My father was born in 1929 in England, and made it his life's
work that none of his children would ever know the poverty of his childhood,
or the horrors of war. He, for the most part suceeded. No I want any
children of mine to have a world where they can move to the Moon if they want,
a world that has all the knowledge of the ages at your fingertips.. That is
my Purpose, and I don't need some "higher power" to give it to me.


# ------------------------------------------------- #
# Douglas E. Berry dbe...@hooked.net #
# Writer, Professional Driver, Traveller Guru #
# #
# "To treat your facts with imagination is one #
# thing. But to imagine your facts is another." #
# -John Burroughs #
# ------------------------------------------------- #

xian the desk lisard

unread,
May 30, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/30/96
to

thus spake chris lindsay in talk.atheism...
. Not to dismiss your argument below...

. >Natalie Overstreet wrote:

. > it's unreasonable to expect it [the Bible] to
. > contain an infinite amount of accuracy for pi.

. But if the Bible is directly the word of God, why is it unreasonable
. to expect it to be infinitely accurate?

principally because to be infinitely accurate on the value of pi would
take an infinite length of time and of book space. there wouldn't be
any bible, because they'd still be writing down decimal places.

see?
--
xian the desk lisard -- cdah...@comp.brad.ac.uk
malformed [ red, pink and blue, but mainly purple ribbons ]
earthborn we both know it was a girl back in bethlehem
you know soft spoken changes nothing view so cruel

Steve Kangas

unread,
May 30, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/30/96
to

In article <4oigqd$k...@crcnis3.unl.edu>,
dsh...@unlinfo.unl.edu (david shobe) wrote:

>On the other hand, if atheistic evolution is true then one's Purpose
>In Life is simply to pass one's genes to the next generation. How
>empty a philosophy!

You make the common mistake of assuming that evolution is an atheistic belief.
Many religions accommodate evolution -- even Christians.

But even more egregiously, you assume that your definition of "empty philosophy"
is the only workable one. I consider it an empty philosophy to waste one's life
sacrificing for an afterlife that will never come.

Steve Kangas
http://www.scruz.net/~kangaroo/

Natalie Overstreet

unread,
May 30, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/30/96
to

Followups away from talk.origins.

chris lindsay (cli...@wavenet.com) wrote:
: Not to dismiss your argument below...

: >Natalie Overstreet wrote:

: > it's unreasonable to expect it [the Bible] to
: > contain an infinite amount of accuracy for pi.

: But if the Bible is directly the word of God, why is it unreasonable
: to expect it to be infinitely accurate?

Well, but it was transcribed by men, who have finite lifetimes. ;-)

: What, God doesn't know the decimal system?

Ah, it was beyond the understanding of his disciples. :-)

Blessings,
Natalie
(who freely admits that defending the Bible is a bit unusual behavior
for her....)

Bill Ataras

unread,
May 30, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/30/96
to

Can someone post or email some URLs that debunk the evolution theory.
And any urls that debunk the debunkers.

Thanks

------------------
How much dough would a Bob Dole dole if a Bob Dole could dole dough?


Michael Heinz

unread,
May 31, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/31/96
to

rdc...@avalon.net (Robert D. Clark) wrote:

>In Second Chronicles, second
>verse, fourth chapter, a cauldron is described: "Also he made the molten
>sea of TEN CUBITS from brim to brim, ROUND in compass, and the height
>thereof was five cubits, and a line of THIRTY CUBITS did compass it ROUND
>ABOUT."[caps mine]
>

>Now we all know that pi= circ./diam.= 22/7= 3 1/7= 3.14...
>The Bible states pi= 30/10= 3.0
>

Dude, I really don't want to get into this - but what did you expect
the answer to be? The Hebrews didn't have floating point math, you
know. No culture did at that point. If I remember correctly, that was
a much later Arabic invention.

Next thing you know, you'll be digging up that old chestnut that
proves that, due to the excessive amount of light, heaven is actually
hotter than hell.


Michae...@worldnet.att.net

Eat flaming death, fascist media pigs ! -- Firesign Theatre

David Jensen

unread,
May 31, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/31/96
to

On Thu, 30 May 1996 22:12:46 GMT, b...@teleport.com (Bill Ataras) wrote:

>Can someone post or email some URLs that debunk the evolution theory.
>And any urls that debunk the debunkers.
>
>Thanks

Ones that accurately and fairly debunk evolution do not exist, God forgot
to create them. Lies about evolution can be found in a number of
creationist sites.

Matt Silberstein

unread,
May 31, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/31/96
to

m...@panix.com (Michael L. Siemon) wrote:

>In article <31ACD5...@wavenet.com>, chris lindsay <cli...@wavenet.com>
>wrote:

>+Not to dismiss your argument below...

>No? that *seems* to be what you're doing...

>+>Natalie Overstreet wrote:

>+> it's unreasonable to expect it [the Bible] to
>+> contain an infinite amount of accuracy for pi.

I just came in on this discussion since it just appeared in talk.origins,
but I do have a comment. The issue with the Bible "error" in the value for
pi is not the accuracy. The passage is something like "a circle one cubit
across and 3 cubits around". Why two measures? Either measure sets the
size of the circle, to put both implies, not a error in the value of pi,
but ignorance of its existance. That is, the people who wrote the Bible
did not know that in stating the diameter, they imply the circumfrence.

>No comment; I'm not sure this is meaningful...

>+But if the Bible is directly the word of God, why is it unreasonable
>+to expect it to be infinitely accurate?

>Because human language is not? What else does "word" mean here?

As I say above they did not need any accuracy.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
I intend this as a indecent, and even obscene, message. It is
especially unsuitable for minors.

--Because I am human, nothing human is beyond me. S.A. --

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Roscoe A. Sincero

unread,
May 31, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/31/96
to

Robert D. Clark (rdc...@avalon.net) wrote:
: [Much interesting stuff deleted, read it for yourself]

: Although the survey was informative, I'm a little iffy about subjecting


: science to a popular vote, although I know that was not the intent.

The survey (mine, that is) did show how ignorant people are about
evolution. That is why creationists feel so bold when they lie so much
about it. They know that very few people will catch them lying. And if
they do get caught, to understand how and what they lied about requires
knowledge. Obviously, the general public does not have the knowledge!

: Evolution, as a concept of differentiation and speciation over time is an


: established fact. The EXACT mechanisms of that change are less well
: established.

: Creationists want us to accept the Bible as the literal word of God,


: invariant and unerring. And yet...there is a glaring, and obvious,

: error-of-fact in the "literal word of God". In Second Chronicles, second


: verse, fourth chapter, a cauldron is described: "Also he made the molten
: sea of TEN CUBITS from brim to brim, ROUND in compass, and the height
: thereof was five cubits, and a line of THIRTY CUBITS did compass it ROUND
: ABOUT."[caps mine]

: Now we all know that pi= circ./diam.= 22/7= 3 1/7= 3.14...
: The Bible states pi= 30/10= 3.0

: IF the "literal word of God" is in KNOWN error at one point, THEN it is


: possible that it is in error at MORE than one point. THEREFORE, ANY
: attempt to state that evolution is impossible because "The Bible says so!"
: is arguing from an untenable base, since the Bible is demonstrably NOT
: "unerring".

Those who claim to take the "literal" interpretation of the bible are
actually lying to you. They do *NOT* take a literal view of anything.
They actually interpret the verses anyway they want to and, of course,
their interpretation is the right one.

So in their lying view, their response to your argument is that the author
of the bible rounded the dimensions. It is a standard argument. It is
repeated so often that even non-fundamentalists accept it.

But, however, the argument of accuracy is really a smokescreen. The
point of the argument is this: If the Bible is 100% accurate and one
should take the LITERAL view of the Biblical verses, then by the use of
simple arithmetic, pi is equal to 3. The only way one will arrive to any
other conclusion is by NOT taking the literal view. Example: the
dimensions were rounded. Since the ancients did not understand
fractions, they couldn't write down decimal points since they did not
know about them. This would mean that they had cubits as there only
units of measurement.


--

John Thompson

unread,
May 31, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/31/96
to

In article <londo-29059...@ppp50.modems.uoknor.edu>,
lo...@uoknor.edu (Londo Mollari) wrote:
>In article <rdclark-2905...@news.avalon.net>, rdc...@avalon.net
>(Robert D. Clark) wrote:
>
>[snip]

>Oh come on. Only the most nutty and extreme biblical fundamentalist
>or an extremely petty non-believer going for a cheap-shot would
>say the the Bible says the pi=3.
>
>They did not have micrometers or any sort of extremely accure

>measuring devices in Biblical times. <snip> Since the measurements


>were only given to a single digit, that is as much as you can get out
>of your estimate of pi.

I think you are missing the point here. Fundamentalists argue the Bible was
dictated BY GOD, not written by men, not patched together from dozens of oral
traditions. Of course you would expect these non-tech types to measure to
more than one significant digit, but how about GOD? Isn't it fair to note
that GOD'S measurements aren't accurate?

>Now the Bible has loads of contradictions and inaccuracies.
>So my question is why do some people feel the need to go for
>such stupid cheap shots?

>Please don't lower yourself to the level of the creationists
>to try to fight them.

I disagree; lots of creationists aren't stupid, they have simply never been
shown passages like this; for anyone with any math or tech training, this is
very convincing, if presented properly. On the other hand, many of the
fundamentalist type love their ignorence, and nothing will convince them.
Don't waste your time on these.


John Thompson
ster...@scsn.net

This tag line conTains exactly threee errors.

Hugh Young

unread,
May 31, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/31/96
to

In <4okki2$3...@columbia.acc.brad.ac.uk> cdah...@comp.brad.ac.uk
(xian the desk lisard) wrote:

>thus spake chris lindsay in talk.atheism...
>. Not to dismiss your argument below...
>
>. >Natalie Overstreet wrote:
>

>. > it's unreasonable to expect it [the Bible] to
>. > contain an infinite amount of accuracy for pi.
>
>. But if the Bible is directly the word of God, why is it
unreasonable

>. to expect it to be infinitely accurate?
>
>principally because to be infinitely accurate on the value of pi
would
>take an infinite length of time and of book space. there wouldn't
be
>any bible, because they'd still be writing down decimal places.

Nobody expects the bible to contain an exact value for pi, but when
it says or even implies a value for pi of 3, it is WRONG.
--
Hugh Young *************************
Pukerua Bay * Avoid RSI/OOS! *
Nuclear-free Aotearoa / NEW ZEALAND * Take regular breaks *
* Watch your posture *
The opinions expressed above * Support your arms *
are damned good ones! * Listen to your body! *
*************************


xian the desk lisard

unread,
May 31, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/31/96
to

thus spake Hugh Young in talk.atheism...
. In <4okki2$3...@columbia.acc.brad.ac.uk> cdah...@comp.brad.ac.uk
. (xian the desk lisard) wrote:

. >thus spake chris lindsay in talk.atheism...
. >. Not to dismiss your argument below...
. >


. >. >Natalie Overstreet wrote:
. >

. >. > it's unreasonable to expect it [the Bible] to
. >. > contain an infinite amount of accuracy for pi.
. >
. >. But if the Bible is directly the word of God, why is it
. unreasonable
. >. to expect it to be infinitely accurate?
. >
. >principally because to be infinitely accurate on the value of pi
. would
. >take an infinite length of time and of book space. there wouldn't
. be
. >any bible, because they'd still be writing down decimal places.

. Nobody expects the bible to contain an exact value for pi, but when
. it says or even implies a value for pi of 3, it is WRONG.

and the snake swallows its tail...

Charles Wm. Dimmick

unread,
May 31, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/31/96
to

John Thompson wrote:
> I think you are missing the point here. Fundamentalists argue the Bible was
> dictated BY GOD, not written by men, not patched together from dozens of oral
> traditions. Of course you would expect these non-tech types to measure to
> more than one significant digit, but how about GOD? Isn't it fair to note
> that GOD'S measurements aren't accurate?
>

I think that you both are missing the point here. The argument should properly
not be against either Yahweh or the Bible, but against Fundamentalists (this
includes Christian, Jewish, and Muslim fundamentalists) who from either an
intellectual or educational or emotional standpoint are not able to properly
interpret the collection of ancient documents that we call the Bible. And
since none of this has anything to do with Urban Legends, why is this wasting
bandwidth on alt.folklore.urban?

Charles Wm. Dimmick
Licensed Lay Minister and former Adult Sunday School Teacher

Natalie Overstreet

unread,
May 31, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/31/96
to

Hugh Young (hu...@young.wn.planet.gen.nz) wrote:
: In <4okki2$3...@columbia.acc.brad.ac.uk> cdah...@comp.brad.ac.uk
: (xian the desk lisard) wrote:

: >thus spake chris lindsay in talk.atheism...
: >. Not to dismiss your argument below...
: >
: >. >Natalie Overstreet wrote:
: >
: >. > it's unreasonable to expect it [the Bible] to
: >. > contain an infinite amount of accuracy for pi.
: >
: >. But if the Bible is directly the word of God, why is it
: unreasonable
: >. to expect it to be infinitely accurate?
: >
: >principally because to be infinitely accurate on the value of pi
: would
: >take an infinite length of time and of book space. there wouldn't
: be
: >any bible, because they'd still be writing down decimal places.

: Nobody expects the bible to contain an exact value for pi, but when
: it says or even implies a value for pi of 3, it is WRONG.

It's no more wrong than if it were to say that pi was 3.14. Both
are incorrect.

Blessings,
Natalie
(amused that she has been mistaken for an inerrantist by some)

user...@prairie.lakes.com

unread,
May 31, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/31/96
to

b...@teleport.com (Bill Ataras) wrote:

>Can someone post or email some URLs that debunk the evolution theory.
>And any urls that debunk the debunkers.

there are none that honestly debunks evolution
some of the more common ones debunked here and now
1c14 dating of shellfish
not appropriate to use c14 dating for any organism that obtains c
from any source other than the atmosphere
2 radioactive dating of rocks
this was from a Hawaiian volcano study in which the lava was non
homoenous the eruption riped out part of the old lava tube
3 no new species have been observed to evolved
has been observed both in the lab and nature read the peer reviewed
journals
4a evolution violates the 3rd law of thermo
false the earth is not a closed system and the very existence of the
earth being in the path of sunlight increases entropy by abosrbing
shortwave radiation and reemitting long wave radiation
4b violates second law of thermo
false with an input of energy(sunlight) useful work can be
done(biological assimilation of co2 and h20)
>Thanks

Wayne Shanks

unread,
May 31, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/31/96
to

> >Now we all know that pi= circ./diam.= 22/7= 3 1/7= 3.14...
> >The Bible states pi= 30/10= 3.0
> >
>
> Dude, I really don't want to get into this - but what did you expect
> the answer to be? The Hebrews didn't have floating point math, you
> know. No culture did at that point. If I remember correctly, that was
> a much later Arabic invention.
>
> Next thing you know, you'll be digging up that old chestnut that
> proves that, due to the excessive amount of light, heaven is actually
> hotter than hell.
>
> Michae...@worldnet.att.net
>
> Eat flaming death, fascist media pigs ! -- Firesign Theatre

I think the point is that the Bible I suposed to be authored by God.
The Human transcribers were nothing more that pupets being controled by
the hand of God. The bible is suposed to be a supernatural expression ,
and thus the text should not be limited by the ignorance of mortal man.
personally I would have been happy with 3.14. Pi out to several
thousnad places would have been realy good. Come or, God has the
computation ability, and it is only a couple of pages.

Wayne S

Roscoe A. Sincero

unread,
May 31, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/31/96
to

Londo Mollari (lo...@uoknor.edu) wrote:
: In article <rdclark-2905...@news.avalon.net>, rdc...@avalon.net
: (Robert D. Clark) wrote:

: [snip]
: > Now we all know that pi= circ./diam.= 22/7= 3 1/7= 3.14...


: > The Bible states pi= 30/10= 3.0

: >

: > IF the "literal word of God" is in KNOWN error at one point, THEN it is
: > possible that it is in error at MORE than one point. THEREFORE, ANY
: > attempt to state that evolution is impossible because "The Bible says so!"
: > is arguing from an untenable base, since the Bible is demonstrably NOT
: > "unerring".

: Oh come on. Only the most nutty and extreme biblical fundamentalist


: or an extremely petty non-believer going for a cheap-shot would
: say the the Bible says the pi=3.

: They did not have micrometers or any sort of extremely accure

: measuring devices in Biblical times. They clearly crudely

Irrelevent. You are simply putting up a smoke screen. It has been
mentioned that 1 cubit is about 17 to 21 inches or something to that
effect. We can assume that the ancient people have units of measurement
that is smaller that 17 inches or you wish to believe that people in
those days always measure things in units with eqivalent length greater
than 1.5 feet.


: stated that something was x long as opposed to 3.7898403798755435434535
: long. The section in question is not a math text but a record on

The length of one side of a desk is 2 feet 4 inches. Clearly, there was
no need for me to use decimals/fractions. And certainly no need to have 20
digit precision either.

: how big various things were. Assuming that Mr. Clark knows about
: the concept of significant figures...It is not correct to take
: two number given to a single digit precision, divide them, and
: go anything beyond a single digit. From this point of view,
: this "biblical" estimate of pi is quite correct. Since the measurements


: were only given to a single digit, that is as much as you can get out
: of your estimate of pi.

The bible writers could have said: Diameter = 10 cubits, Circum =31
cubits. But they didn't. They could have said diameter = 9 cubits, 6
toenail lengths; circum = 29 cubits, 8 toenail lengths. But they
didn't. The simple fact of the matter is that the authors could have
been more accurate with the dimensions without resorting to the use of
decimals or fractions. They chose not to.

If they made this choice, what other choices did they make? Thus, the
Bible can not be used as a science/history book.

: Now the Bible has loads of contradictions and inaccuracies.


: So my question is why do some people feel the need to go for
: such stupid cheap shots?

: Please don't lower yourself to the level of the creationists
: to try to fight them.

--

Roscoe A. Sincero

unread,
May 31, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/31/96
to

Bill Ataras (b...@teleport.com) wrote:
: Can someone post or email some URLs that debunk the evolution theory.
: And any urls that debunk the debunkers.

Visit my homepage at http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/1761/index.html

Select Creation v. Evolution and it will take you where you want to go.
Includes list of creationist organization/work and list of evolution
organization/work.

Don't forget to read my editorial.

: Thanks

: ------------------
: How much dough would a Bob Dole dole if a Bob Dole could dole dough?

I give this tag a 7. I've seen worse. See below.

Roscoe A. Sincero

unread,
May 31, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/31/96
to

Michael Heinz (Michae...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
: rdc...@avalon.net (Robert D. Clark) wrote:

: >In Second Chronicles, second


: >verse, fourth chapter, a cauldron is described: "Also he made the molten
: >sea of TEN CUBITS from brim to brim, ROUND in compass, and the height
: >thereof was five cubits, and a line of THIRTY CUBITS did compass it ROUND
: >ABOUT."[caps mine]
: >

: >Now we all know that pi= circ./diam.= 22/7= 3 1/7= 3.14...
: >The Bible states pi= 30/10= 3.0
: >

: Dude, I really don't want to get into this - but what did you expect


: the answer to be? The Hebrews didn't have floating point math, you
: know. No culture did at that point. If I remember correctly, that was
: a much later Arabic invention.

: Next thing you know, you'll be digging up that old chestnut that
: proves that, due to the excessive amount of light, heaven is actually
: hotter than hell.

I measure the circumference of your skull to be 1 feet 6 inches. To put
it in another way, your head is about 1.5 feet in circumference.

Now 1.5 feet requires knowledge of "floating point math".

Provide your argument/source/evidence that 1 feet 6 inches requires
knowledge of "floating point math".

Oh, I get it. The ancient people always measured lengths in units of
cubits which is about 1.5 feet or more. They had no smaller unit of
lengths, right?


: Michae...@worldnet.att.net

: Eat flaming death, fascist media pigs ! -- Firesign Theatre

--

Russell Stewart

unread,
May 31, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/31/96
to

In article <4oigqd$k...@crcnis3.unl.edu>,
dsh...@unlinfo.unl.edu (david shobe) wrote:
>
>On the other hand, if atheistic evolution is true then one's Purpose
>In Life is simply to pass one's genes to the next generation. How
>empty a philosophy!

Which only shows, of course, that trying to use the theory of
evolution as a philosophy is about as empty as trying to use
the theory of gravity as a philosophy.

It doesn't mean it's an invalid theory.


--
_____________________________________________________________
| Russell Stewart |
| http://www.rt66.com/diamond/ |
|_____________________________________________________________|
| Albuquerque, New Mexico | dia...@rt66.com |
|_____________________________|_______________________________|
If Rush is Right, then I'll take what's Left.


Matt Pierce

unread,
May 31, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/31/96
to

Wayne Shanks (al...@wam.umd.edu) wrote:
: > >Now we all know that pi= circ./diam.= 22/7= 3 1/7= 3.14...
: > >The Bible states pi= 30/10= 3.0
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Untrue! The Bible states no such thing! The KJV allows one to derive a
value of Pi of 3.0 based upon a most-likely mistranslation, but the Bible
says nothing of the value of Pi.

: > >


: >
: > Dude, I really don't want to get into this - but what did you expect
: > the answer to be? The Hebrews didn't have floating point math, you
: > know. No culture did at that point. If I remember correctly, that was
: > a much later Arabic invention.
: >
: > Next thing you know, you'll be digging up that old chestnut that
: > proves that, due to the excessive amount of light, heaven is actually
: > hotter than hell.

: >

: > Michae...@worldnet.att.net
: >
: > Eat flaming death, fascist media pigs ! -- Firesign Theatre

: I think the point is that the Bible I suposed to be authored by God.

I believe that the Bible is authored by God, but since it has been
xlated by humans over the centuries, errors most likely will creep in
from time to time.

: The Human transcribers were nothing more that pupets being controled by

: the hand of God. The bible is suposed to be a supernatural expression ,
: and thus the text should not be limited by the ignorance of mortal man.
: personally I would have been happy with 3.14. Pi out to several
: thousnad places would have been realy good. Come or, God has the
: computation ability, and it is only a couple of pages.

What use would it be? What use would it have been to man to have Pi listed
in the bible out to several decimals when for centuries it would have been
meaningless, especially since the Bible is not a science book? What possible
use would it have been especially since the Bible doesn't even list the
value of Pi?

: Wayne S

This Pi argument is really pretty ridiculous when you look at the different
translations and see how the bath is described. In all the translations which
I have read, with the exception of the KJV, there is no problem with the math
and Pi cannot be derived from the specifications for the bath. In all the
non-KJV translations, the bath is described as having a circumference of 30 cubits
with a lip like a cup - flared like a lilly petal, with a lip diameter of
10 cubits. If you look at the math: Circumference = Pi * Diameter and do a
little manipulation to get Diameter = Circumference / Pi. Then substitute the
numbers -> 30cubits/3.14159... you will get a diameter of the main bath in the
neighborhood of 9.55 cubits. Now if the lip of this bath is flared in the manner
of a cup and lilly petal (outward) then a lip with a diameter of 10 cubits would
indeed flare outward like a lilly/cup from a bath with a diameter of 9.55
cubits. The KJV lists the bath as having a lip with lillies imprinted about the
edge rather than being shaped like a lilly. From what I know, all versions have
their own set of translation descrepencies as does the KJV and this appears to be
one of them, especially due to the fact that most other translations (don't want
to say all - I haven't seen them all) list the lip of the bath as flared like a
lilly.

So as far as I am concerned, there is not problem with the number Pi in the
bible because a) Pi is not listed, and b) most translations are consistent
with our approximation of Pi (with the noted exception of the KJV).

Matt Pierce

Kenny Abernathy

unread,
May 31, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/31/96
to

> >P.S. More troubling is that the numerical figures in I,II Chronicles
> >often don't match those in I,II Samuel and I,II Kings. And Jesus is
> >given two completely different genealogies in Luke and Matthew.

I would like to point out for accuracy's sake that one of the Jesus'
genealogies is traced through his father and the other through his
mother.

Kenny Abernathy

David Jensen

unread,
May 31, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/31/96
to


Maybe, although I didn't know that the Spirit of the Lord had a genealogy.

Dave

Don W. Ward

unread,
May 31, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/31/96
to

Does this really need to be cross posted to 25 groups?

Roscoe A. Sincero

unread,
May 31, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/31/96
to Peter Bruells

Reply posted and mailed.

On Fri, 31 May 1996, Peter Bruells wrote:

> >>>>> "Roscoe" == Roscoe A Sincero <leg...@Glue.umd.edu> writes:
>
> Roscoe>

> > IT wasn't a mathematician. I believe the guy was a medical
> > doctor. In any case, it was a mathematician who tried to

> > keep the bill from passing. And there seems to be a
> > suggestion that the senate didn't take the bill seriously
> > anyway.
>

> "Dr. Goodwin, the author, is a mathematician of note. He has it
> copyrighted and his proposition is that if the legislature will
> indorse the solution, he will allow the state to use the demonstration
> in its textbooks free of charge. The author is lobbying for the
> bill."
>
> And the FAQ (not that it's chiseled in stone) states that the senate
> took it serious.
>
> I foudn most sci.* FAQS to be well researches, so I'm inclined to go
> with their story.
>

"The author of the bill was a physician, Edwin J. Goodman, M.D., of
Solitude, Posey County, Indiana, and it was introduced in the Indiana
House on January 18, 1897, by Mr. Taylor I. Record, Representative from
Posey Country. " (p. 174)

The bill was referred to the House Committee on Swamp Lands, then to
Committee of Education, back to Swamp Lands then to Committee on
Temperance. (p. 177) When Professor C. A. Waldo joined the scene, the
bill was postponed indefinately.

It sure sounds like the bill was taken seriously. Makes one wonder if any
of them actually read it. The bill could have been passed without a single
idiot actually reading it.

The book did not mention that Mr. Goodman was a mathematician. It is
interesting to note that "Goodman" later became "Goodwin" of Solitude,
Posey County. (p. 174)

What did the FAQ say about the various committees involved so we can
compare/contrast whether or not the bill was taken seriously.

Source: "A History of Pi" by Petr Beckmann, The Golem Press, New York, 1971.

David DeGraff

unread,
May 31, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/31/96
to

In article <4oigqd$k...@crcnis3.unl.edu>, dsh...@unlinfo.unl.edu (david
shobe) wrote:

> Robert D. Clark (rdc...@avalon.net) wrote:
> : [Much interesting stuff deleted, read it for yourself]
>
>

> : Creationists want us to accept the Bible as the literal word of God,
> : invariant and unerring. And yet...there is a glaring, and obvious,

> : error-of-fact in the "literal word of God". In Second Chronicles, second


> : verse, fourth chapter, a cauldron is described: "Also he made the molten
> : sea of TEN CUBITS from brim to brim, ROUND in compass, and the height
> : thereof was five cubits, and a line of THIRTY CUBITS did compass it ROUND
> : ABOUT."[caps mine]
>

> : Now we all know that pi= circ./diam.= 22/7= 3 1/7= 3.14...
> : The Bible states pi= 30/10= 3.0

...
> ...To the number of significant figures in the measurement
> the circumference is consistent with the diameter. If the diameter is
> 9.700 cubits, the circumference is 30.473... cubits. (And how precise
> a unit of measurement was a cubit anyway?)

A cubit is the distance from your elbow to the tip of your finger.
a very handy measring stick :-> Unless Ancient Engineers
wore shirts with even rules on them, acuracy is not too good.

I bet the Scotts could make accurate measurments if they
wore their trtans on their sleeves.

--
David DeGraff WARNING!
Physical Sciences Nature abhors an atmosphere
Alfred University Check your suit seals

Michael Heinz

unread,
Jun 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/1/96
to

"Don W. Ward" <Don...@gnn.com> wrote:

>Does this really need to be cross posted to 25 groups?

No, but that wouldn't have been any fun, would it. Much better to tie
up 25 news groups in a carefully instigated flame war...

Michae...@worldnet.att.net

Greetings New User! A clever or insightful quote or saying should
be placed in this file before you use this program.

Michael Heinz

unread,
Jun 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/1/96
to

ster...@scsn.net (John Thompson) wrote:

>I think you are missing the point here. Fundamentalists argue the Bible was
>dictated BY GOD, not written by men, not patched together from dozens of oral
>traditions.

No, they don't. Get your fake facts straight before you try to
disprove them. What fundamentalists, strict Catholics and other
literalists argue is that the bible was divinely INPSIRED, not that
God handed the divine steno pad to Moses and said "run off a few
million copies and pass them around."

Doug Reade

unread,
Jun 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/1/96
to

dbe...@hooked.net (Douglas E. Berry) wrote:
>In article <4oigqd$k...@crcnis3.unl.edu>,
> dsh...@unlinfo.unl.edu (david shobe) wrote:
>
>
>>On the other hand, if atheistic evolution is true then one's Purpose
>>In Life is simply to pass one's genes to the next generation. How
>>empty a philosophy!
>
>That is the physical purpose. as sentient lifeforms, we have the ability to
>give ourselves a higher purpose- making the world a better place for our
>decendants. My father was born in 1929 in England, and made it his life's
>work that none of his children would ever know the poverty of his childhood,
>or the horrors of war. He, for the most part suceeded. No I want any
>children of mine to have a world where they can move to the Moon if they want,
>a world that has all the knowledge of the ages at your fingertips.. That is
>my Purpose, and I don't need some "higher power" to give it to me.
>
>
># ------------------------------------------------- #
># Douglas E. Berry dbe...@hooked.net #
># Writer, Professional Driver, Traveller Guru #
># #
># "To treat your facts with imagination is one #
># thing. But to imagine your facts is another." #
># -John Burroughs #
># ------------------------------------------------- #

Please trim newsgroup list for this discussion. The ones above are the
only ones even remotely interested.

Thank you.


John Surcombe

unread,
Jun 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/1/96
to

chris lindsay <cli...@wavenet.com> wrote:

>> it's unreasonable to expect it [the Bible] to

>> contain an infinite amount of accuracy for pi.
>

>But if the Bible is directly the word of God, why is it unreasonable

>to expect it to be infinitely accurate?

Because it would require an infinite number of pages to write down the
exact measurements, and would instantly make the Bible the world's most
boring book - God would never even get as far as a reply from the
publishers. And since it's only written for ordinary men, a long
discussion into the transcendental nature of pi and convergent series
that can be used to calculate it wouldn't exactly make much headway
on the philosophy or religious fronts.

--
Cheers now,
John

All opinions expressed are my own and are thus most likely entirely wrong.

John Surcombe

unread,
Jun 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/1/96
to

david shobe <dsh...@unlinfo.unl.edu> wrote:

>On the other hand, if atheistic evolution is true then one's Purpose
>In Life is simply to pass one's genes to the next generation. How
>empty a philosophy!

Evolution is not philosophy - it is the sad fact of life.

Kevin W. Davidson

unread,
Jun 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/1/96
to

In article <31ACD5...@wavenet.com>, chris lindsay <cli...@wavenet.com>
wrote:

>But if the Bible is directly the word of God, why is it unreasonable

>to expect it to be infinitely accurate?

Well for one thing, the decimal expansion of PI is infinite and therefore
could not be written in any book.

Kevin (soft-...@cup.portal.com)
http://www.portal.com/~logik


Einstein

unread,
Jun 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/1/96
to

The bible is a mere comicbook!

--
"Imagination is more important than knowledge!"
Einstein
mailto:eins...@mars.superlink.net
http://mars.superlink.net/einstein netscape 2.0 or better
http://mars.superlink.net/einstein/einstein.html others

mer...@epix.net

unread,
Jun 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/2/96
to


God Created Everything And The He/she let it Evole I mean Come on He/She has a
whole Universe to watch over (I think there is more than one planet he/she put
life on) He/she doesn't have time to worry about One world's Population for
too long Also The Bible is not the "Exact Word of God" The Bible Was Written
By a Bunch of Muir (It's a Drug) Smoking old Rich King to Scare the Peasents
and keep them In Line (Hence the reason The Old Testement Mentions God as An
Angry god) Then It was Rewritten by a Bunch of Preist to make religion
Apealing to the masses (New Testament's Loving god). That's Why it starts with
The First Humans To make it topical. The only true Faith in God That matters
Is the Keystones in the Bible Of the Ten Commandments. Those Ten Basic LAWS
that God Gave us to follow I belive that part of the Bible Is True
For if you give your Creations Free will you must give them Guidelines so the
now what's right and what's wrong (Thou Shalt not Kill = Killing Is wrong
Don't do it (That means Most forms of Killing except those that Preserve Life
I.e. Self Defence ) ) People can give you any interpertation of anything From
Numbers to The bible That Makes for a Dangerous World To live in No matter If
its 1996Ad or 12,000 Bc .


Evan Steeg

unread,
Jun 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/2/96
to

In article <368.6726...@mercury.interpath.com>,

Kevin W. Davidson <kwda...@mercury.interpath.com> wrote:
>In article <31ACD5...@wavenet.com>, chris lindsay <cli...@wavenet.com>
>wrote:
>
>>But if the Bible is directly the word of God, why is it unreasonable
>>to expect it to be infinitely accurate?
>
>Well for one thing, the decimal expansion of PI is infinite and therefore
>could not be written in any book.

Irrelevant, because there exist finite symbolic encodings of the
algebraic specifications of Pi. If 19th century human mathematicians
can figure out and write down finite and perfectly-"accurate" representations
of Pi, so, I would think, could an omnipotent Creator penning the Bible.

For the record, I don't think the many specific scientific inaccuracies
that are found in a literal reading of the Bible necessarily invalidate
it it in terms of spiritual or moral guidance. (Same for other religious
texts outside of the narrow western-centric traditions). Similarly, the fact
that it gets some things right (placement of particular ancient cities,
dates, personages) doesn't mean that it is infallibly true. To presume
otherwise would be the height of irrationality.

-- Evan

Evan W. Steeg
Department of Computing and Information Science
Queen's University
Kingston, Ontario K7L 3N6
CANADA
***************************************************************************
** Official Computational Molecular Biologist of the 1996 Olympic Games ***
***************************************************************************


Mike Wright

unread,
Jun 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/2/96
to

Many newsgroups trimmed.

Michael Heinz wrote:

> ster...@scsn.net (John Thompson) wrote:

> >I think you are missing the point here. Fundamentalists argue the Bible was
> >dictated BY GOD, not written by men, not patched together from dozens of oral
> >traditions.

> No, they don't. Get your fake facts straight before you try to
> disprove them. What fundamentalists, strict Catholics and other
> literalists argue is that the bible was divinely INPSIRED, not that
> God handed the divine steno pad to Moses and said "run off a few
> million copies and pass them around."

Michael, you obviously haven't spent much time perusing talk.origins. There are
people out there who say that atoms are held together by Jesus' hands, and base
this on their reading of a fully inerrant Bible that must be accepted as
absolutely, literally correct. Of course, some of them do think that only the
original Hebrew and Greek versions are perfect. However, there *are* also those
who think that the King James Version is an inerrant translation. I remember
someone saying (in real life, not on the Net) that people should stick to the
original version - KJV - and not use the modern translations. My understanding
was that he thought that the prophets, patriarchs, and disciples of Jesus wrote
it in English.

Mike (Keris) Wright
Associate Professor of Eastern Oriental Languages and Bluegrass Music
University of Ediacara
Project: Sexual Selection and the 5-string Banjo Among the Hmong

"I only use my gun whenever kindness fails." - Robert Earl Keen


Aaron Boyden

unread,
Jun 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/2/96
to

On 31 May 1996, Matt Pierce wrote:

> I believe that the Bible is authored by God, but since it has been
> xlated by humans over the centuries, errors most likely will creep in
> from time to time.

"It was subtle of God to learn Greek when He wished to become an
author- and not to learn it better." -Nietzsche

---
Aaron Boyden

"Any competent philosopher who does not understand something will take care
not to understand anything else whereby it might be explained." -David Lewis


Stephen Coulson

unread,
Jun 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/2/96
to

On 31-May-96 20:46:07, Matt Pierce spake unto All on the matter refered to as
"Re: Creation VS Evolution Survey Now Complete"!

>What use would it be? What use would it have been to man to have Pi listed
>in the bible out to several decimals when for centuries it would have been
>meaningless, especially since the Bible is not a science book? What possible

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

*GASP*

+ _ /^^ ( Stephen B. Coulson ) +
|(_'[_ _ _ [_ _ _ |OO O ( e-mail: ) |
|,_)[_,(-'[_)[ )(-'[ ) @ \ o ( glo...@vcn.bc.ca ) |
+ ~ [ ~ |o~ . (_________________________________) +
--
All opinions herein have been quality tested and aged in oak vats.

Patrick Juola

unread,
Jun 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/2/96
to

In article <31AF5D...@aegisrc.com> Kenny Abernathy <kaber...@aegisrc.com> writes:
>> >P.S. More troubling is that the numerical figures in I,II Chronicles
>> >often don't match those in I,II Samuel and I,II Kings. And Jesus is
>> >given two completely different genealogies in Luke and Matthew.
>
>I would like to point out for accuracy's sake that one of the Jesus'
>genealogies is traced through his father and the other through his
>mother.

I would like to point out for accuracy's sake that there's no evidence
of this in the texts whatsoever. If, in fact, the Lucian geneology
is supposed to be matrilineal, then Hezron, Perez, Judah, Jacob, and Isaac,
were all "involved with" their sisters.

Patrick

Alex Matulich 03T1

unread,
Jun 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/2/96
to

Kenny Abernathy <kaber...@aegisrc.com> wrote:
>> >And Jesus is given two completely different genealogies in Luke and
>> >Matthew.

>I would like to point out for accuracy's sake that one of the Jesus'
>genealogies is traced through his father and the other through his
>mother.

I've seen this claim before, used to explain away an obvious biblical
inconsistency. I find it a pretty strange assertion, considering the
fact that neither Joachim nor Anna (Mary's parents) are mentioned in
either genealogy.

--
/|
Alex Matulich __. __=#|| ___ _o--
matu...@marlin.navsea.navy.mil ____##_/_____|==###===###____
\____________________________\

Kevin W. Davidson

unread,
Jun 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/2/96
to

Natalie Overstreet previously wrote an article appearing in talk.religion.misc:

>It's no more wrong than if it were to say that pi was 3.14. Both
>are incorrect.

If one assumes that the diameter of the tank were 10 cubits, then the
circumference (measured to the nearest cubit) would bt 31, not 30
as the Bible says.

If one assumes that the circumferences of the tank were 30 cubits
more or less exactly, then the diameter would be 10 cubits (to the
nearest cubit) or 9 cubits if one truncates. It actually close to
9.5.

So one might come down on either side of the error question.

What I think is that "common knowledge" was that a circle was
3 times it's diameter, the diameter of the tank was measured
and the circumference computed using 3.

Kevin (soft-...@cup.portal.com)
http://www.portal.com/~logik


Vernal Reader

unread,
Jun 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/2/96
to

On Fri, 31 May 1996 15:58:56 -0500, Kenny Abernathy
<kaber...@aegisrc.com> wrote:

>> >P.S. More troubling is that the numerical figures in I,II Chronicles

>> >often don't match those in I,II Samuel and I,II Kings. And Jesus is


>> >given two completely different genealogies in Luke and Matthew.
>
>I would like to point out for accuracy's sake that one of the Jesus'
>genealogies is traced through his father and the other through his
>mother.
>

>Kenny Abernathy

But wait! Isn't his father supposed to be God?

Steven Carr

unread,
Jun 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/2/96
to

on 1 Jun 1996 21:30:10 GMT, kwda...@mercury.interpath.com (Kevin W.
Davidson) wrote :


>Well for one thing, the decimal expansion of PI is infinite and therefore
>could not be written in any book.

While pi is not in the Bible, the Bible is in pi.
Pi's expansion is infinite, so all texts are coded in there, sooner or
(much) later.


Michael L. Siemon

unread,
Jun 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/2/96
to

In article <4osugg$g...@soap.news.pipex.net>, ca...@dial.pipex.com (Steven
Carr) wrote:

+While pi is not in the Bible, the Bible is in pi.
+Pi's expansion is infinite, so all texts are coded in there, sooner or
+(much) later.

This does not follow.
--
Michael L. Siemon m...@panix.com

"The watchwords of creativity are sloppiness, poor fit,
quirky design, and above all else, redundancy." S.J. Gould

Kenneth Fair

unread,
Jun 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/2/96
to

In article <4osugg$g...@soap.news.pipex.net>, ca...@dial.pipex.com (Steven
Carr) wrote:


>While pi is not in the Bible, the Bible is in pi.

>Pi's expansion is infinite, so all texts are coded in there, sooner or

>(much) later.

Not necessarily. You can have infinite sets that don't include everything.
For example, you can have an number that is irrational (thus infinite) and
yet contains no nines in its decimal expansion.

--
KEN FAIR - U. Chicago Law | <http://student-www.uchicago.edu/users/kjfair>
Of Counsel, U. of Ediacara | Power Mac! | CABAL(tm) | I'm w/in McQ - R U?
If trees could scream, would we be so cavalier about cutting them down?
We might, if they screamed all the time, for no good reason.

Dan M.

unread,
Jun 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/3/96
to

Kenny Abernathy <kaber...@aegisrc.com> wrote:
>> >P.S. More troubling is that the numerical figures in I,II Chronicles
>> >often don't match those in I,II Samuel and I,II Kings. And Jesus is
>> >given two completely different genealogies in Luke and Matthew.
>
>I would like to point out for accuracy's sake that one of the Jesus'
>genealogies is traced through his father and the other through his
>mother.
>
>Kenny Abernathy


What?

Luke 3:21
He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli....


Matt 1:16
and Jacob, the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born
Jesus, who is called Christ.


NIV Study Bible

Both are through Joseph. There are a lot of theological statements in
these geneologies if one wishes to study them. They are not to be taken
literally.

See Raymond Brown's "The Birth of the Messiah"

Dan M.


Kevin Davis

unread,
Jun 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/3/96
to

Wayne Shanks <al...@wam.umd.edu> wrote:

>> >Now we all know that pi= circ./diam.= 22/7= 3 1/7= 3.14...
>> >The Bible states pi= 30/10= 3.0
>> >
>>

>> Dude, I really don't want to get into this - but what did you expect
>> the answer to be? The Hebrews didn't have floating point math, you
>> know. No culture did at that point. If I remember correctly, that was
>> a much later Arabic invention.
>>
>> Next thing you know, you'll be digging up that old chestnut that
>> proves that, due to the excessive amount of light, heaven is actually
>> hotter than hell.
>>
>> Michae...@worldnet.att.net
>>
>> Eat flaming death, fascist media pigs ! -- Firesign Theatre

>I think the point is that the Bible I suposed to be authored by God.
>The Human transcribers were nothing more that pupets being controled by
>the hand of God. The bible is suposed to be a supernatural expression ,
>and thus the text should not be limited by the ignorance of mortal man.
>personally I would have been happy with 3.14. Pi out to several
>thousnad places would have been realy good. Come or, God has the
>computation ability, and it is only a couple of pages.

Maybe you should go and read it to say if the specification was for a
perfect circle. How about whether the inner diameters or outer
diameters were used or a combo. ASSumptions run wild when people are
dead set their mind in trying any attempt to prove the Bible wrong.


Edward Rice

unread,
Jun 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/3/96
to

In article <4on9md$j...@cville-srv.wam.umd.edu>,
leg...@Glue.umd.edu (Roscoe A. Sincero) wrote:

> I measure the circumference of your skull to be 1 feet 6 inches. To put

> it in another way, your head is about 1.5 feet in circumference.
>
> Now 1.5 feet requires knowledge of "floating point math".

Floating point has nothing to do with this. Please.

Benjamin J. Tilly

unread,
Jun 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/3/96
to

In article <4on951$j...@cville-srv.wam.umd.edu>
leg...@Glue.umd.edu (Roscoe A. Sincero) writes:

> Londo Mollari (lo...@uoknor.edu) wrote:
> : In article <rdclark-2905...@news.avalon.net>, rdc...@avalon.net
> : (Robert D. Clark) wrote:
>
> : [snip]
> : > Now we all know that pi= circ./diam.= 22/7= 3 1/7= 3.14...


> : > The Bible states pi= 30/10= 3.0

> : >
> : > IF the "literal word of God" is in KNOWN error at one point, THEN it is
> : > possible that it is in error at MORE than one point. THEREFORE, ANY
> : > attempt to state that evolution is impossible because "The Bible says so!"
> : > is arguing from an untenable base, since the Bible is demonstrably NOT
> : > "unerring".
>
> : Oh come on. Only the most nutty and extreme biblical fundamentalist
> : or an extremely petty non-believer going for a cheap-shot would
> : say the the Bible says the pi=3.
>
> : They did not have micrometers or any sort of extremely accure
> : measuring devices in Biblical times. They clearly crudely
>
> Irrelevent. You are simply putting up a smoke screen. It has been
> mentioned that 1 cubit is about 17 to 21 inches or something to that
> effect. We can assume that the ancient people have units of measurement
> that is smaller that 17 inches or you wish to believe that people in
> those days always measure things in units with eqivalent length greater
> than 1.5 feet.
>
>
> : stated that something was x long as opposed to 3.7898403798755435434535
> : long. The section in question is not a math text but a record on
>
> The length of one side of a desk is 2 feet 4 inches. Clearly, there was
> no need for me to use decimals/fractions. And certainly no need to have 20
> digit precision either.
>
> : how big various things were. Assuming that Mr. Clark knows about
> : the concept of significant figures...It is not correct to take
> : two number given to a single digit precision, divide them, and
> : go anything beyond a single digit. From this point of view,
> : this "biblical" estimate of pi is quite correct. Since the measurements
> : were only given to a single digit, that is as much as you can get out
> : of your estimate of pi.
>
> The bible writers could have said: Diameter = 10 cubits, Circum =31
> cubits. But they didn't. They could have said diameter = 9 cubits, 6
> toenail lengths; circum = 29 cubits, 8 toenail lengths. But they
> didn't. The simple fact of the matter is that the authors could have
> been more accurate with the dimensions without resorting to the use of
> decimals or fractions. They chose not to.
>
In a day and age where the length of a cubit varied depending on who
was measuring it, a measurement like "29 cubits, 8 toenail lengths
(whose toenails?)" would not have made sense.

Furthermore in response to the 10 cubits, 31 cubits statement, if the
diameter was around 9.7 cubits then to the nearest cubit the correct
measurements are 10 and 30 respectively.

Personally I am quite happy with the measurements given. If I, as an
atheist, want a contradiction I pick something simple. Such as the
question of whether God created people on the 6'th day as it says in
the first chapter of Genesis or the seventh as it says in the second.
Or whether Judas died by hanging or exploding. Contradictions like
these are far simpler to argue and have the advantage that there is no
debatability about whether they show an inadequacy in the Bible.

> If they made this choice, what other choices did they make? Thus, the
> Bible can not be used as a science/history book.
>
Correction. The Bible can be, and has been, used as a science/history
book. Whether or not a good case for doing this exists is a totally
different question. (In fact there is a good case against.) But in
point of fact, your statement is demonstrably incorrect.
>
>
> : Now the Bible has loads of contradictions and inaccuracies.
> : So my question is why do some people feel the need to go for
> : such stupid cheap shots?
>
> : Please don't lower yourself to the level of the creationists
> : to try to fight them.

My feeling exactly.

Ben Tilly

Steven Carr

unread,
Jun 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/3/96
to

on Sun, 2 Jun 1996 22:23:27 GMT, kjf...@midway.uchicago.edu (Kenneth
Fair) wrote :

>In article <4osugg$g...@soap.news.pipex.net>, ca...@dial.pipex.com (Steven
>Carr) wrote:


>>While pi is not in the Bible, the Bible is in pi.
>>Pi's expansion is infinite, so all texts are coded in there, sooner or
>>(much) later.

>Not necessarily. You can have infinite sets that don't include everything.
>For example, you can have an number that is irrational (thus infinite) and
>yet contains no nines in its decimal expansion.

I just choose a coding that does not need 9's.
Can't I choose a coding where 0-4 represent a 0 and 5-8 represent a 1?
This gives me a binary string, which I can turn into ASCII and see if
it is equal to the Bible.
.
Steven Carr (NW England) ca...@dial.pipex.com


Hugh Young

unread,
Jun 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/3/96
to

In <4ooghn$s...@ratty.wolfe.net> Doug Reade <read...@wolfenet.com>
wrote:

>dbe...@hooked.net (Douglas E. Berry) wrote:
>>In article <4oigqd$k...@crcnis3.unl.edu>,

>> dsh...@unlinfo.unl.edu (david shobe) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On the other hand, if atheistic evolution is true then one's
Purpose
>>>In Life is simply to pass one's genes to the next generation. How
>>>empty a philosophy!
>>

>>That is the physical purpose. as sentient lifeforms, we have the
ability to
>>give ourselves a higher purpose- making the world a better place
for our
>>decendants. My father was born in 1929 in England, and made it his
life's
>>work that none of his children would ever know the poverty of his
childhood,
>>or the horrors of war. He, for the most part suceeded. No I want
any
>>children of mine to have a world where they can move to the Moon if
they want,
>>a world that has all the knowledge of the ages at your fingertips..
That is
>>my Purpose, and I don't need some "higher power" to give it to me.

Whichever, if evolution is true, it is true, and the fact, if it is a
fact, that it does not provide the basis for a purpose to life is
just something we will have to live with. The fact, if it is a fact,
that creationism gives a meaning to life, has no bearing whatsoever
on whether it is true or not.

Anyway, going from evolution to creationism (and there are plenty of
other possibilities) only passes the buck. What would the creator's
purpose in "life" be? etc etc.
--
Hugh Young *************************
Pukerua Bay * Avoid RSI/OOS! *
Nuclear-free Aotearoa / NEW ZEALAND * Take regular breaks *
* Watch your posture *
The opinions expressed above * Support your arms *
are damned good ones! * Listen to your body! *
*************************


Patrick Juola

unread,
Jun 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/3/96
to

In article <4osugg$g...@soap.news.pipex.net> ca...@dial.pipex.com (Steven Carr) writes:
>on 1 Jun 1996 21:30:10 GMT, kwda...@mercury.interpath.com (Kevin W.
>Davidson) wrote :
>
>
>>Well for one thing, the decimal expansion of PI is infinite and therefore
>>could not be written in any book.
>
>While pi is not in the Bible, the Bible is in pi.
>Pi's expansion is infinite, so all texts are coded in there, sooner or
>(much) later.

Doesn't follow. The expansion of 1/3 is infinite, too. So is
the expansion .10100100010000100000....

Patrick

Matt Pierce

unread,
Jun 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/3/96
to

Evan Steeg (st...@qucis.queensu.ca) wrote:
: In article <368.6726...@mercury.interpath.com>,

: Kevin W. Davidson <kwda...@mercury.interpath.com> wrote:
: >In article <31ACD5...@wavenet.com>, chris lindsay <cli...@wavenet.com>
: >wrote:
: >
: >>But if the Bible is directly the word of God, why is it unreasonable
: >>to expect it to be infinitely accurate?
: >
: >Well for one thing, the decimal expansion of PI is infinite and therefore

: >could not be written in any book.

: Irrelevant, because there exist finite symbolic encodings of the


: algebraic specifications of Pi. If 19th century human mathematicians
: can figure out and write down finite and perfectly-"accurate" representations
: of Pi, so, I would think, could an omnipotent Creator penning the Bible.

I don't know where everyone is getting the idea that the Bible lists a
value for PI because it doesn't. The value is in question comes from a
descripions in Kings (10:27 I think, maybe 10:26) of a bath which in the
KJV allows one to come up with a possible and wrong value of PI as 3. If
one reads the description of the bath though and looks at a few other
translations one can see that the description is probably wrong or incomplete
in the KJV version and correct in most others (all that I have searched:NKJV,
NIV,RSV,TLB,NAS). Therefore it appears that this debate is pointless and is
again an example of taking one sentence out of the Bible and drawing an
incorrect conclusion to support one's claim of non-inerrancy of the Bible.

Check it out for yourself,

Matt Pierce

Matt Pierce

unread,
Jun 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/3/96
to

: >> >Now we all know that pi= circ./diam.= 22/7= 3 1/7= 3.14...
: >> >The Bible states pi= 30/10= 3.0
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Absolutely false!!! The Bible makes no such statement!!! People
try to derive this value of PI from the Bible using a description of
a bath from the KJV, but if you use most other versions you will get
a specification for the bath which is consistent with our general
value of PI. Which versions list this description is left as an
exercise for the reader because if the reader says "The Bible states
pi= 30/10= 3.0" then the reader obviously has not read any version
of the Bible because there is no version out there that states this.

Matt Pierce

PS - let's try to trim our Newsgroups and Followup-To lines, they are
excessively crossposted.

frank dever

unread,
Jun 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/3/96
to

<some newsgroiups thinned>
kda...@digital.net (Kevin Davis) wrote:

>Wayne Shanks <al...@wam.umd.edu> wrote:
>
>>> >Now we all know that pi= circ./diam.= 22/7= 3 1/7= 3.14...
>>> >The Bible states pi= 30/10= 3.0
>>> >
>>>

Actually, it was a fluted vase. Sort of like a kool-aid
pitcher. The fluted part is the cause of the misunderstanding. But it
is interesting the lengths people will go to - even to lie - to
justify biblical passages. You don't need floating point math to
measure something that large to integral units. 30 is certainly
differentiated from 31 with a simple measuring tape! The zeal of
believers stops at nothing to convince someone else - even claiming
that tears appear on paintings as miracles, and tumors disappearing
from cancer patients, but arms and legs don't grow back because
floating point math hasn't been invented yet. They think their
ignorance is excusable since they believe they are right in the end.
Is it any wonder people are skeptical?

-frank
>
>
>
>
>

-----
why pray for the traffic light to change, but not the stop sign?

Kenneth Fair

unread,
Jun 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/3/96
to

In article <4oue4a$2...@news.ox.ac.uk>, pat...@gryphon.psych.ox.ac.uk
(Patrick Juola) wrote:

>In article <4osugg$g...@soap.news.pipex.net> ca...@dial.pipex.com (Steven
Carr) writes:
>>on 1 Jun 1996 21:30:10 GMT, kwda...@mercury.interpath.com (Kevin W.
>>Davidson) wrote :
>>
>>

>>>Well for one thing, the decimal expansion of PI is infinite and therefore
>>>could not be written in any book.
>>

>>While pi is not in the Bible, the Bible is in pi.
>>Pi's expansion is infinite, so all texts are coded in there, sooner or
>>(much) later.
>
>Doesn't follow. The expansion of 1/3 is infinite, too. So is
>the expansion .10100100010000100000....

Actually, I thought of this. I couldn't remember if .10100100010000...
would be irrational or not. Seems to me it is, but I didn't have time
to figure it out.

--
KEN FAIR - U. Chicago Law | <http://student-www.uchicago.edu/users/kjfair>
Of Counsel, U. of Ediacara | Power Mac! | CABAL(tm) | I'm w/in McQ - R U?

"You're fooling yourself. We're living in a dictatorship, a
self-perpetuating autocracy..." - Dennis

John Ahlstrom

unread,
Jun 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/3/96
to

Dennis L. McKiernan (dl...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
: A cubit was a measure which ran anywhere from 17
: to 21 inches. So, 30 cubits was close enough for
: biblical work. Nevertheless, I do not accept the
: bible as the literal word of anyone except the
: author(s) of the various sections, whether that's
: a word, line, verse, chapter, or book. Anyone
: who believes (or believed) s/he has (or had) a
: direct pipeline to god(s) is ___________ (fill in
: the blank).
: ---DLMcK

I fill in the blank with "extremely fortunate"


--
John Ahlstrom jahl...@cisco.com
408-526-6025 Using Java to Decrease Entropy

May 1996 -- "First free Webzine dies for lack of advertiser support."
Remember to click 3 ads whenever you visit a free site.

Any neural system sufficiently complex to generate the axioms of arithmetic
is too complex to be understood by itself.
Kaekel's Conjecture

Joel Rosenberg

unread,
Jun 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/3/96
to

In article <4ovckp$2...@cronkite.cisco.com> jahl...@cisco.com (John Ahlstrom) writes:


>Dennis L. McKiernan (dl...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
>: A cubit was a measure which ran anywhere from 17
>: to 21 inches. So, 30 cubits was close enough for
>: biblical work. Nevertheless, I do not accept the
>: bible as the literal word of anyone except the
>: author(s) of the various sections, whether that's
>: a word, line, verse, chapter, or book. Anyone
>: who believes (or believed) s/he has (or had) a
>: direct pipeline to god(s) is ___________ (fill in
>: the blank).
>: ---DLMcK

>I fill in the blank with "extremely fortunate"

Not necessarily. Read the Book of Jonah, for example. (Or, if you don't mind
the plug, the short story, based on it, that Dave Drake bought for a
collection of Armageddon stories coming out presumably next year from Baen.)

Joel Rosenberg | jo...@winternet.com | http://www.winternet.com/~joelr
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the
hateful words and actions of the bad people but for the
appalling silence of the good people.
-- Martin Luther King, Jr.

Helge Moulding

unread,
Jun 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/3/96
to

Matt Pierce wrote,
: Absolutely false!!! The Bible makes no such statement!!! [...]
: PS - let's try to trim our Newsgroups and Followup-To lines, they are
: excessively crossposted.

Good idea. Try starting on that advice some time.
--
Helge Moulding

Matt Pierce

unread,
Jun 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/3/96
to

frank dever (fde...@airmail.net) wrote:
: <some newsgroiups thinned>
: kda...@digital.net (Kevin Davis) wrote:

Just as amazing as the lengths that people will go to in an attempt to
refute biblical passages, as is illustrated in this debate now.

: You don't need floating point math to


: measure something that large to integral units. 30 is certainly
: differentiated from 31 with a simple measuring tape!

Agreed, but if you have a flared lip and a circumference of 30 cubits,
then any lip diameter measurement wider than 9.55 (30 / PI ~= 9.55)
cubits is consistent with the specifications (and the larger the lip
diameter the greater the flare). A lip diameter of 10 cubits would make the
bath have a noticeable flare (~0.225 cubits wider than the bath portion)
and is certainly consistent with the design. Also notice, this gives
absolutely *no* conflict with the value of PI.

: The zeal of


: believers stops at nothing to convince someone else - even claiming
: that tears appear on paintings as miracles, and tumors disappearing
: from cancer patients, but arms and legs don't grow back because
: floating point math hasn't been invented yet. They think their
: ignorance is excusable since they believe they are right in the end.
: Is it any wonder people are skeptical?

Yes, and non-believers can be equally zealous in the opposite direction,
and be equally wrong in certain cases (such as this one).

: -frank

Frank,

you are correct in that the specification for the bath is that it
is fluted (described as having a lip like a cup and flared like a
lilly petal). Because of this, the specifications *do* fit and a
value of PI which is consistent with currently used values (3.1415...)
can be derived.

If you are insinuating that believers are lying to be consistent with
the flared-lip-model then I suggest that you re-read the passage and
re-examine your thinking. The flared-lip specification is consistent
with a bath having a rim diamter of 10 cubits with a body circumference
of 30 cubits (assuming uniform wall thickness and both measurements
taken from either the inside or the outside).

One would have to lie or be ignorant to assume an incorrect value of
PI from the specifications given, assuming one *does not* use the KJV
specifications which *does not* list the lip as being flared like most
other translations (can't say all others - I haven't researched all of
them).

Anthony Potts

unread,
Jun 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/3/96
to


On Mon, 3 Jun 1996, Kenneth Fair wrote:

> In article <4oue4a$2...@news.ox.ac.uk>, pat...@gryphon.psych.ox.ac.uk
> (Patrick Juola) wrote:
>
> >In article <4osugg$g...@soap.news.pipex.net> ca...@dial.pipex.com (Steven
> Carr) writes:
> >>on 1 Jun 1996 21:30:10 GMT, kwda...@mercury.interpath.com (Kevin W.
> >>Davidson) wrote :
> >>
> >>
> >>>Well for one thing, the decimal expansion of PI is infinite and therefore
> >>>could not be written in any book.
> >>
> >>While pi is not in the Bible, the Bible is in pi.
> >>Pi's expansion is infinite, so all texts are coded in there, sooner or
> >>(much) later.
> >
> >Doesn't follow. The expansion of 1/3 is infinite, too. So is
> >the expansion .10100100010000100000....
>
> Actually, I thought of this. I couldn't remember if .10100100010000...
> would be irrational or not. Seems to me it is, but I didn't have time
> to figure it out.
>

The fact that it is irrational, transcendental and normal (or at least
appears to be) does tend to suggest that everything is in there.

Benjamin J. Tilly

unread,
Jun 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/3/96
to

In article <4oqo0n$3...@knot.queensu.ca>
st...@qucis.queensu.ca (Evan Steeg) writes:

> In article <368.6726...@mercury.interpath.com>,
> Kevin W. Davidson <kwda...@mercury.interpath.com> wrote:
> >In article <31ACD5...@wavenet.com>, chris lindsay <cli...@wavenet.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>But if the Bible is directly the word of God, why is it unreasonable
> >>to expect it to be infinitely accurate?
> >

> >Well for one thing, the decimal expansion of PI is infinite and therefore
> >could not be written in any book.
>

> Irrelevant, because there exist finite symbolic encodings of the
> algebraic specifications of Pi. If 19th century human mathematicians
> can figure out and write down finite and perfectly-"accurate" representations
> of Pi, so, I would think, could an omnipotent Creator penning the Bible.

Heck, the word *circle* is only an approximation in the real world.

Strictly speaking we cannot have a perfect geometric circle.

Am I bothered that things are described as "circles" in the Bible? No,
I am not. And I am an atheist for heck's sake!!!


Please, why bring up *weak* arguments against the Bible when *strong*
ones are available? Sheesh!

Ben Tilly

Yet Another Steve

unread,
Jun 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/4/96
to

david shobe <dsh...@unlinfo.unl.edu> wrote:

>On the other hand, if atheistic evolution is true then one's Purpose
>In Life is simply to pass one's genes to the next generation. How
>empty a philosophy!


... whereas if one is Religious, then one's Purpose In Life is to spurn
the pleasures of this life (and any attempt to make the world a better
place), and then die so as to get on with whatever comes after. How rich,
how rewarding!

Now that we've discussed the two end points, perhaps there's some middle
ground?

Steve


frank dever

unread,
Jun 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/4/96
to

mpi...@vcd.hp.com (Matt Pierce) wrote:

It's not the relative amazement that is important, but that
truth is deliberately distorted in it's own defense. It can't be
trusted in that kind of environment.

>: You don't need floating point math to
>: measure something that large to integral units. 30 is certainly
>: differentiated from 31 with a simple measuring tape!
>
>Agreed, but if you have a flared lip and a circumference of 30 cubits,
>then any lip diameter measurement wider than 9.55 (30 / PI ~= 9.55)
>cubits is consistent with the specifications (and the larger the lip
>diameter the greater the flare). A lip diameter of 10 cubits would make the
>bath have a noticeable flare (~0.225 cubits wider than the bath portion)
>and is certainly consistent with the design. Also notice, this gives
>absolutely *no* conflict with the value of PI.

I wasn't disputing it - I was the one that KNEW it was a
fluted vase, remember? I wasn't trying to refute anything.

>
>: The zeal of
>: believers stops at nothing to convince someone else - even claiming
>: that tears appear on paintings as miracles, and tumors disappearing
>: from cancer patients, but arms and legs don't grow back because
>: floating point math hasn't been invented yet. They think their
>: ignorance is excusable since they believe they are right in the end.
>: Is it any wonder people are skeptical?
>
>Yes, and non-believers can be equally zealous in the opposite direction,
>and be equally wrong in certain cases (such as this one).

That isn't the point. The point is that the high ground of
presenting the truth unmodified is not in the possession of zealots,
as they claim.


>
>: -frank
>
>Frank,
>
>you are correct in that the specification for the bath is that it
>is fluted (described as having a lip like a cup and flared like a
>lilly petal). Because of this, the specifications *do* fit and a
>value of PI which is consistent with currently used values (3.1415...)
>can be derived.
>
>If you are insinuating that believers are lying to be consistent with
>the flared-lip-model then I suggest that you re-read the passage and
>re-examine your thinking. The flared-lip specification is consistent
>with a bath having a rim diamter of 10 cubits with a body circumference
>of 30 cubits (assuming uniform wall thickness and both measurements
>taken from either the inside or the outside).

Sorry, but I know the point was to shore up a biblical verse,
no matter what the truth might be. It doesn't matter what the truth
is, when you find someone using "floating point math" as the proof
that 30 = 31 more or less.


>
>One would have to lie or be ignorant to assume an incorrect value of
>PI from the specifications given, assuming one *does not* use the KJV
>specifications which *does not* list the lip as being flared like most
>other translations (can't say all others - I haven't researched all of
>them).

Yes, but when that ignorant one is a Christian, they report
the "fact" that 30 is essentially 31 because of some lame non-reason.

Michael Gallo

unread,
Jun 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/4/96
to

In article <31AF5D...@aegisrc.com>,

Kenny Abernathy <kaber...@aegisrc.com> wrote:
>> >P.S. More troubling is that the numerical figures in I,II Chronicles
>> >often don't match those in I,II Samuel and I,II Kings. And Jesus is
>> >given two completely different genealogies in Luke and Matthew.
>
>I would like to point out for accuracy's sake that one of the Jesus'
>genealogies is traced through his father and the other through his
>mother.

(I would like to trim the follow-up groups for nettiquette's sake.
Please take note if you wish to follow this discussion.)

Actually, the texts do not seem to bear Kenny out. Matthew 1 claims
that "Abraham fathered Isaac ... Jacob fathered Joseph, the husband
of Mary; of her was born Jesus who is called Christ."

Luke 3 says "Jesus was about thirty years old, being the son, as it
was thought, of Joseph son of Heli..."

Both geneologies trace Jesus's ancestry through his step-father Joseph,
but disagree from that point on. The texts appear quite
straightforward and contradictory, and I've always wondered why some
Christians see Mary's geneology here. Perhaps Kenny could elaborate.
--
mailto:mi...@iodesign.com http://www.mike.iodesign.com/

Matt Pierce

unread,
Jun 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/4/96
to

frank dever (fde...@airmail.net) wrote:
: mpi...@vcd.hp.com (Matt Pierce) wrote:

[snip]

: >Just as amazing as the lengths that people will go to in an attempt to


: >refute biblical passages, as is illustrated in this debate now.

: It's not the relative amazement that is important, but that
: truth is deliberately distorted in it's own defense. It can't be
: trusted in that kind of environment.

: >: You don't need floating point math to
: >: measure something that large to integral units. 30 is certainly
: >: differentiated from 31 with a simple measuring tape!
: >
: >Agreed, but if you have a flared lip and a circumference of 30 cubits,
: >then any lip diameter measurement wider than 9.55 (30 / PI ~= 9.55)
: >cubits is consistent with the specifications (and the larger the lip
: >diameter the greater the flare). A lip diameter of 10 cubits would make the
: >bath have a noticeable flare (~0.225 cubits wider than the bath portion)
: >and is certainly consistent with the design. Also notice, this gives
: >absolutely *no* conflict with the value of PI.

: I wasn't disputing it - I was the one that KNEW it was a
: fluted vase, remember? I wasn't trying to refute anything.

Ok, I think I understand where you're coming from, sort of like "the
end doesn't justify the means" sort of an approach to arguing a point,
correct? (meaning that even if the conclusion is correct, the point
is that the method for arriving there can be incorrect and that is your
focus)

: >Yes, and non-believers can be equally zealous in the opposite direction,


: >and be equally wrong in certain cases (such as this one).

: That isn't the point. The point is that the high ground of
: presenting the truth unmodified is not in the possession of zealots,
: as they claim.

I agree, and that goes for zealots on both sides of the issue.

: >
: >: -frank


: >
: >Frank,
: >
: >you are correct in that the specification for the bath is that it
: >is fluted (described as having a lip like a cup and flared like a
: >lilly petal). Because of this, the specifications *do* fit and a
: >value of PI which is consistent with currently used values (3.1415...)
: >can be derived.
: >
: >If you are insinuating that believers are lying to be consistent with
: >the flared-lip-model then I suggest that you re-read the passage and
: >re-examine your thinking. The flared-lip specification is consistent
: >with a bath having a rim diamter of 10 cubits with a body circumference
: >of 30 cubits (assuming uniform wall thickness and both measurements
: >taken from either the inside or the outside).

: Sorry, but I know the point was to shore up a biblical verse,
: no matter what the truth might be. It doesn't matter what the truth
: is, when you find someone using "floating point math" as the proof
: that 30 = 31 more or less.

The verse doesn't need to be shored up - it's not incorrect. The point
(from my point of view) was that there are some persons whow were
arguing that "The Bible says PI = 3" and were justifying it with an
incomplete specification from the book of 1Kings and that is an utterly
false statement which can be shown 2 ways: 1) The Bible doesn't say
anything about the value of PI and 2) The specification for the bath
as given in the KJV is incomplete, but is complete in all other versions
which I have read, and is consistent with our accepted value of PI today.

: >One would have to lie or be ignorant to assume an incorrect value of


: >PI from the specifications given, assuming one *does not* use the KJV
: >specifications which *does not* list the lip as being flared like most
: >other translations (can't say all others - I haven't researched all of
: >them).

: Yes, but when that ignorant one is a Christian, they report
: the "fact" that 30 is essentially 31 because of some lame non-reason.

Same goes for anyone who reports the "fact" that "The Bible says PI = 3",
as I have shown.

Matt Pierce

Einstein

unread,
Jun 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/4/96
to

The bible is a mere comic book written 2000 years ago!

Dan M. wrote:
>
> Kenny Abernathy <kaber...@aegisrc.com> wrote:
> >> >P.S. More troubling is that the numerical figures in I,II Chronicles
> >> >often don't match those in I,II Samuel and I,II Kings. And Jesus is
> >> >given two completely different genealogies in Luke and Matthew.
> >
> >I would like to point out for accuracy's sake that one of the Jesus'
> >genealogies is traced through his father and the other through his
> >mother.
> >

> >Kenny Abernathy
>
> What?
>
> Luke 3:21
> He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli....
>
> Matt 1:16
> and Jacob, the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born
> Jesus, who is called Christ.
>
> NIV Study Bible
>
> Both are through Joseph. There are a lot of theological statements in
> these geneologies if one wishes to study them. They are not to be taken
> literally.
>
> See Raymond Brown's "The Birth of the Messiah"
>
> Dan M.

--
"Imagination is more important than knowledge!"
Einstein
mailto:eins...@mars.superlink.net
http://mars.superlink.net/einstein netscape 2.0 or better
http://mars.superlink.net/einstein/einstein.html others

Shane Glaseman

unread,
Jun 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/4/96
to

The purpose of life is to enjoy what's here (without infringing on
others' enjoyment), to make some relevant (but not necessarily
earth-shaking) contribution, and to learn.

(Yeah, just "learn." Not for any specific purpose, necessarily, other
than the sheer joy of learning.)

It might not be "right," but I like it.

frank dever

unread,
Jun 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/4/96
to

mpi...@vcd.hp.com (Matt Pierce) wrote:

>frank dever (fde...@airmail.net) wrote:
>: mpi...@vcd.hp.com (Matt Pierce) wrote:
>
>[snip]
>

>: >Just as amazing as the lengths that people will go to in an attempt to


>: >refute biblical passages, as is illustrated in this debate now.
>
>: It's not the relative amazement that is important, but that
>: truth is deliberately distorted in it's own defense. It can't be
>: trusted in that kind of environment.
>
>: >: You don't need floating point math to
>: >: measure something that large to integral units. 30 is certainly
>: >: differentiated from 31 with a simple measuring tape!
>: >
>: >Agreed, but if you have a flared lip and a circumference of 30 cubits,
>: >then any lip diameter measurement wider than 9.55 (30 / PI ~= 9.55)
>: >cubits is consistent with the specifications (and the larger the lip
>: >diameter the greater the flare). A lip diameter of 10 cubits would make the
>: >bath have a noticeable flare (~0.225 cubits wider than the bath portion)
>: >and is certainly consistent with the design. Also notice, this gives
>: >absolutely *no* conflict with the value of PI.
>
>: I wasn't disputing it - I was the one that KNEW it was a
>: fluted vase, remember? I wasn't trying to refute anything.
>

>Ok, I think I understand where you're coming from, sort of like "the
>end doesn't justify the means" sort of an approach to arguing a point,
>correct? (meaning that even if the conclusion is correct, the point
>is that the method for arriving there can be incorrect and that is your
>focus)

Right. The method is "God is right. I _believe_ this is from
God, therefore it's true." Science goes out the window.

>
>: >Yes, and non-believers can be equally zealous in the opposite direction,


>: >and be equally wrong in certain cases (such as this one).
>
>: That isn't the point. The point is that the high ground of
>: presenting the truth unmodified is not in the possession of zealots,
>: as they claim.
>

>I agree, and that goes for zealots on both sides of the issue.

That isn't the issue. The issue is that Christians avoid
science like it was the plague. And it destroys their witness.
Especially when they defend arguments against scripture without
knowing what they are doing (re: arguing that floating point math was
not available until the Arabs developed it and that is why 30 is
essentially equal to 31).

>
>: >
>: >: -frank


>: >
>: >Frank,
>: >
>: >you are correct in that the specification for the bath is that it
>: >is fluted (described as having a lip like a cup and flared like a
>: >lilly petal). Because of this, the specifications *do* fit and a
>: >value of PI which is consistent with currently used values (3.1415...)
>: >can be derived.
>: >
>: >If you are insinuating that believers are lying to be consistent with
>: >the flared-lip-model then I suggest that you re-read the passage and
>: >re-examine your thinking. The flared-lip specification is consistent
>: >with a bath having a rim diamter of 10 cubits with a body circumference
>: >of 30 cubits (assuming uniform wall thickness and both measurements
>: >taken from either the inside or the outside).
>
>: Sorry, but I know the point was to shore up a biblical verse,
>: no matter what the truth might be. It doesn't matter what the truth
>: is, when you find someone using "floating point math" as the proof
>: that 30 = 31 more or less.
>

>The verse doesn't need to be shored up - it's not incorrect. The point
>(from my point of view) was that there are some persons whow were
>arguing that "The Bible says PI = 3" and were justifying it with an
>incomplete specification from the book of 1Kings and that is an utterly
>false statement which can be shown 2 ways: 1) The Bible doesn't say
>anything about the value of PI and 2) The specification for the bath
>as given in the KJV is incomplete, but is complete in all other versions
>which I have read, and is consistent with our accepted value of PI today.
>

>: >One would have to lie or be ignorant to assume an incorrect value of


>: >PI from the specifications given, assuming one *does not* use the KJV
>: >specifications which *does not* list the lip as being flared like most
>: >other translations (can't say all others - I haven't researched all of
>: >them).
>
>: Yes, but when that ignorant one is a Christian, they report
>: the "fact" that 30 is essentially 31 because of some lame non-reason.
>

>Same goes for anyone who reports the "fact" that "The Bible says PI = 3",
>as I have shown.

It is not sufficient to show that someone else's methods are
wrong, in order to show that one's own methods are not at fault.
>
>Matt Pierce

David Swanson

unread,
Jun 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/4/96
to

Does this junk belong in alt.postmodern?

David

"Resistance to the proposition that the essence of truth is freedom is
based on preconceptions, the most obstinate of which is that freedom is
a property of man." Martin Heidegger, "On the Essence of Truth," [Vom
Wesen der Wahrheit] translated by John Sallis, in "Basic Writings,"
(old version, 1977) p.126.

Matt Pierce

unread,
Jun 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/4/96
to

frank dever (fde...@airmail.net) wrote:
: mpi...@vcd.hp.com (Matt Pierce) wrote:

: >frank dever (fde...@airmail.net) wrote:
: >: mpi...@vcd.hp.com (Matt Pierce) wrote:
: >
: >[snip]

: >I agree, and that goes for zealots on both sides of the issue.

: That isn't the issue. The issue is that Christians avoid
: science like it was the plague. And it destroys their witness.
: Especially when they defend arguments against scripture without
: knowing what they are doing (re: arguing that floating point math was
: not available until the Arabs developed it and that is why 30 is
: essentially equal to 31).

Well, I have to disagree with you here since I am a Christian *and*
a scientist, so your generalization should be revised a bit I would
think, but I would agree if you restated it as "...many Christians..."

My point was that whoever started this thread stating that God says
PI = 3, or words to that effect, is wrong due to the fact that the
Bible says nothing about the value of PI, etc.

We seem to have crossed paths and are arguing our perspective ways
against the other and are in agreement yet going in different
directions :)

: It is not sufficient to show that someone else's methods are


: wrong, in order to show that one's own methods are not at fault.

I agree, but that wasn't *my* point. I see your point and agree with
it, it just isn't the point that *I* am driving at.

Matt

Roscoe A. Sincero

unread,
Jun 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/4/96
to

Distribution:

Matt Pierce (mpi...@vcd.hp.com) wrote:
: frank dever (fde...@airmail.net) wrote:

: : <some newsgroiups thinned>
: : kda...@digital.net (Kevin Davis) wrote:

: Just as amazing as the lengths that people will go to in an attempt to


: refute biblical passages, as is illustrated in this debate now.

: : You don't need floating point math to


: : measure something that large to integral units. 30 is certainly
: : differentiated from 31 with a simple measuring tape!

: Agreed, but if you have a flared lip and a circumference of 30 cubits,
: then any lip diameter measurement wider than 9.55 (30 / PI ~= 9.55)
: cubits is consistent with the specifications (and the larger the lip
: diameter the greater the flare). A lip diameter of 10 cubits would make the
: bath have a noticeable flare (~0.225 cubits wider than the bath portion)
: and is certainly consistent with the design. Also notice, this gives
: absolutely *no* conflict with the value of PI.

I see you and others are still putting this smokescreen up. The
deception here is not the actual dimensions of the "bath" but the word
"cubit". I'd invite everyone to take a piece wood that is 1.5 feet in
length. Now ask yourself, do you really think that people in those days
measure everything in groups of 1.5 feet! Now since a cubit can be 2
feet in length, how many people believe that the ancients measured
everything in groups of 2 feet!

It is possible that the ancients had other units available to them
besides cubits. The authors of the Bible simply chose not use them.

Moreover, this certainly does not address the point of the argument: The
Bible is 100% accurate and should be taken literally. If the Bible says
the diameter is 30 feet, 30 miles, 30 light-years then it is 30 feet, 30
miles or 30 lights years. It is not 30.005 feet. It is not 30.0000008
miles. It is not 29.74847 light-years.

This had been mentioned before. Interesting that this smokescreen is
still being used.


--
==========================================================================
Roscoe A. Sincero
B.S. Chemical Engineering, May 1993 University of Maryland College Park
Job Seeker
e-mail: leg...@eng.umd.edu
WWW: http://www.glue.umd.edu/~legion
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/1761

Honorary Faculty Member of University of Ediacara
- Professor of Creative Non Sequitur Engineering
- Thomas Barnes Chair of Philosophy

Research Interests: Analytical Modelling of Rectum Tunneling Effect on
the Creationist Mind and Its Effect on the Second Law

Second Law Efficiency of Nostril Mining and Digging In
Relation to Creationist Thought Processes

Mike Wright

unread,
Jun 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/4/96
to

Kevin Davis wrote:

[stuff about God's ability to calculate pi deleted]

> Maybe you should go and read it to say if the specification was for a
> perfect circle. How about whether the inner diameters or outer
> diameters were used or a combo. ASSumptions run wild when people are
> dead set their mind in trying any attempt to prove the Bible wrong.

Or, when they are trying to prove the Bible right.

Mike (Keris) Wright
Associate Professor of Eastern Oriental Languages and Bluegrass Music
University of Ediacara
Project: Sexual Selection and the 5-string Banjo Among the Hmong

"I only use my gun whenever kindness fails." - Robert Earl Keen

Generous

unread,
Jun 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/5/96
to

On Mon, 03 Jun 1996 06:58:38 GMT, Steven Carr <ca...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>
> [ ... ]

>
> >>While pi is not in the Bible, the Bible is in pi.
> >>Pi's expansion is infinite, so all texts are coded in there, sooner or
> >>(much) later.
>
> >Not necessarily. You can have infinite sets that don't include everything.
> >For example, you can have an number that is irrational (thus infinite) and
> >yet contains no nines in its decimal expansion.
>
> I just choose a coding that does not need 9's.
> Can't I choose a coding where 0-4 represent a 0 and 5-8 represent a 1?
> This gives me a binary string, which I can turn into ASCII and see if
> it is equal to the Bible.

But you are still ignoring the fact that there are infinite sets which
do not include everything. No matter how you encode pi, it might
still not yield something that translates into the text of the Bible.

Here is but one example of an infinite set which cannot be encoded
into anything which yields the text of the Bible:

{ 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, ... }

(in other words, the set which contains an infinite number of ones).

Here's another such set:

{ 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, ... }

(in other words, the set which contains one instance of the number
two and an infinite number of ones).

--
gene...@c2.org


Kevin W. Davidson

unread,
Jun 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/5/96
to

[I could not in good conscience post this to alt.fan.rush-limbaugh and
a large number of completely off-topic groups.]

Dan M. previously wrote an article appearing in talk.religion.misc:

>Luke 3:21
>He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli....


>Matt 1:16
>and Jacob, the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born
>Jesus, who is called Christ.


>NIV Study Bible

>Both are through Joseph. There are a lot of theological statements in
>these geneologies if one wishes to study them. They are not to be taken
>literally.

I agree with your conclusion. I would also like to point a subtle
item about the punctuation from the Lucan text from the NIV cited
above.

You will notice that, in contrast to the NRSV translation, there is
a comma after Joseph. So the NIV reads:

Joseph, the son of Heli, son of...

and the NRSV reads:

Joseph son of Heli, son of ...

Many fundamentalists see in that NIV comma the possibility that
"the son of Heli" does not apply to Joseph, but that Joseph's
appearance in proximity to the list is incidental or parenthetic.

Kevin (soft-...@cup.portal.com)
http://www.portal.com/~logik


Kevin W. Davidson

unread,
Jun 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/5/96
to

Steven Carr previously wrote an article appearing in talk.religion.misc:


>on 1 Jun 1996 21:30:10 GMT, kwda...@mercury.interpath.com (Kevin W.
>Davidson) wrote :

>>Well for one thing, the decimal expansion of PI is infinite and therefore
>>could not be written in any book.

>While pi is not in the Bible, the Bible is in pi.


>Pi's expansion is infinite, so all texts are coded in there, sooner or
>(much) later.

I don't see how that is necessarily true. The decimal expansion of PI
might, or might not have the Bible encoded in it.

1/3 has an infinite decimal expansion (.3333333333333) but the Bible
is obviously not in it.

PI is, however, an irrational number and this forces it not to be a
repeating decimal. However, we have no way of knowing whether any
particular sequence is lurking in the dark parts of its decimal
expansion.

That is, unless there is a proof of this of which I am not aware.

Kevin (soft-...@cup.portal.com)
http://www.portal.com/~logik


Michael Gallo

unread,
Jun 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/5/96
to

In article <31B148...@redshift.com>,
Mike Wright <dar...@redshift.com> wrote:
>
>Michael, you obviously haven't spent much time perusing talk.origins. There are
>people out there who say that atoms are held together by Jesus' hands, and base
>this on their reading of a fully inerrant Bible that must be accepted as
>absolutely, literally correct.

I'm curious, what passage do they base this opinion upon? I've
heard it before but never backed up with a Bible quote.

Mike

P.S. Follow-ups set. Why does everything here get cross-posted
madly?

Matt Pierce

unread,
Jun 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/5/96
to

Roscoe A. Sincero (leg...@Glue.umd.edu) wrote:
: Distribution:

: Matt Pierce (mpi...@vcd.hp.com) wrote:
: : frank dever (fde...@airmail.net) wrote:
: : : <some newsgroiups thinned>
: : : kda...@digital.net (Kevin Davis) wrote:

: : : >Wayne Shanks <al...@wam.umd.edu> wrote:
: : : >
[snip]

: : bath have a noticeable flare (~0.225 cubits wider than the bath portion)


: : and is certainly consistent with the design. Also notice, this gives
: : absolutely *no* conflict with the value of PI.

: I see you and others are still putting this smokescreen up. The

Uh, and to whom are you referring above when you say "I see you..." and
what smokescreen? I am agreeing with the Bible and haven't a problem
with it. Please clarify, your response appears to be to me.

Matt Pierce

John Ahlstrom

unread,
Jun 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/5/96
to

david shobe (dsh...@unlinfo.unl.edu) wrote:
-- snip snip
: On the other hand, if atheistic evolution is true then one's Purpose
: In Life is simply to pass one's genes to the next generation. How
: empty a philosophy!

First
I am a believer, a Christian, and I believe in evolution. I am not
sure what the difference between simple evolution and athiestic evolution
is. Whatever it is, I do not believe in athiestic evolution because
I am not an athiest.

Second
What on earth does the truth or falsity of "athiestic evolution" have to do
with one's Purpose In Life? My purpose in life has nothing to do
with passing my genes to anyone (I have an adopted daughter). I
have many purposes in life, ah, but then I do not believe in
athiestic evolution.

John Ahlstrom

unread,
Jun 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/5/96
to

Roscoe A. Sincero (leg...@Glue.umd.edu) wrote:
-- snip snip

: If they made this choice, what other choices did they make? Thus, the
: Bible can not be used as a science/history book.

-- snip snip
: --


: ==========================================================================
: Roscoe A. Sincero
: B.S. Chemical Engineering, May 1993 University of Maryland College Park
: Job Seeker
: e-mail: leg...@eng.umd.edu
: WWW: http://www.glue.umd.edu/~legion
: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/1761

: Honorary Faculty Member of University of Ediacara
: - Professor of Creative Non Sequitur Engineering
: - Thomas Barnes Chair of Philosophy

: Research Interests: Analytical Modelling of Rectum Tunneling Effect on
: the Creationist Mind and Its Effect on the Second Law
:
: Second Law Efficiency of Nostril Mining and Digging In
: Relation to Creationist Thought Processes

:

Of course the Bible cannot be used as a science book. Science is a
methodology that had not evolved when the Bible was written.

Of course the Bible can be used as a history book. History is
always written by the winners.

Hugh Young

unread,
Jun 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/5/96
to

In <4p1ofd$r...@cville-srv.wam.umd.edu> leg...@Glue.umd.edu (Roscoe A.
Sincero) wrote:

>Distribution:
>
>Matt Pierce (mpi...@vcd.hp.com) wrote:
>: frank dever (fde...@airmail.net) wrote:
>: : <some newsgroiups thinned>
>: : kda...@digital.net (Kevin Davis) wrote:
>
>: : >Wayne Shanks <al...@wam.umd.edu> wrote:
>: : >
>: : >>> >Now we all know that pi= circ./diam.= 22/7= 3 1/7= 3.14...
>: : >>> >The Bible states pi= 30/10= 3.0
>: : >>> >
>: : >>>
>: : >>> Dude, I really don't want to get into this - but what did
you expect
>: : >>> the answer to be? The Hebrews didn't have floating point
math, you
>: : >>> know. No culture did at that point. If I remember
correctly, that was
>: : >>> a much later Arabic invention.
>: : >>>
>: : >>> Next thing you know, you'll be digging up that old chestnut
that
>: : >>> proves that, due to the excessive amount of light, heaven is
actually
>: : >>> hotter than hell.

No, that one's a joke. And the bowl was "round" but not necessarily
circular. If you want to trip up the Bible mathematically, try:

David paid 50 shekels for the threshing floor (2 Sam 24:24)
" " 600 " " " " " (1 Chron 12:25)

Israel had 800,000 fighting men (2 Sam 24:9)
" " 1,100,000 " " (1 Chron 21:5)

Judah " 500,000 " " "
" " 470,000 " " "

David took 700 horsemen (2 Sam 8:4)
" " 7000 " (1 Chron 18:4)

Michal had no children (2 Sam 6:23)
" " 5 " ( " 21:8)

Abraham had 2 sons (Gal 4:22)
" " 1 son. (Heb 1:17)

Christ = God ("I and my father are one." John 10:30)
" not = " ("My father is greater than I." John 14:28)
(They burnt people at the stake for that one.)

--
Hugh Young *************************
Pukerua Bay * Avoid RSI/OOS! *
Nuclear-free Aotearoa / NEW ZEALAND * Take regular breaks *
* Watch your posture *
The opinions expressed above * Support your arms *
are damned good ones! * Listen to your body! *
*************************


Ronald Eugene Kidd

unread,
Jun 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/5/96
to

On 5 Jun 1996 02:37:24 GMT, mi...@hal.iodesign.com (Michael Gallo)
wrote:

> ___________________________________


>I'm curious, what passage do they base this opinion upon? I've

> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


>heard it before but never backed up with a Bible quote.
>
>Mike
>

Mike, they are probably referring to Colossians 1:17. I'll send you
several translations of the verse by email.

--

Rev. Ronald Eugene Kidd, 4821 Poston Dr., San Jose, CA 95136
(408)225-0567(voice) - (408)224-4491(fax) - Kid...@ix.netcom.com
***************************************************************************
* ...(Love) Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, *
* endureth all things, Love never faileth:... --1 Corinthians 13:7,8 *
***************************************************************************

Stu

unread,
Jun 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/5/96
to

John Ahlstrom (jahl...@cisco.com) wrote:

: david shobe (dsh...@unlinfo.unl.edu) wrote:
: -- snip snip
: : On the other hand, if atheistic evolution is true then one's Purpose
: : In Life is simply to pass one's genes to the next generation. How
: : empty a philosophy!

: First
: I am a believer, a Christian, and I believe in evolution. I am not
: sure what the difference between simple evolution and athiestic evolution
: is. Whatever it is, I do not believe in athiestic evolution because
: I am not an athiest.

You are a "normal" christian caught by an argument from someone who sounds
like a fundamentalist christian - since they believe the bible literally and
believe in creation anything else is non christian and wrong. To them
atheism and evolution are the same thing, which is unfortunate because that
would mean that atheism was correct, just like evolution.

Two points to those fundamentalist christians...

1. People don't have to believe in the bible literally to be christian.

2. People don't have to be christian to believe in god.

: Second


: What on earth does the truth or falsity of "athiestic evolution" have to do
: with one's Purpose In Life? My purpose in life has nothing to do
: with passing my genes to anyone (I have an adopted daughter). I
: have many purposes in life, ah, but then I do not believe in
: athiestic evolution.


It means a lot when your faith is balanced procariously on believing the
bible is the exact word of god.

-Stu

Bjoern Eriksson

unread,
Jun 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/5/96
to

Kevin W. Davidson wrote:
>
> Steven Carr previously wrote an article appearing in talk.religion.misc:
> >on 1 Jun 1996 21:30:10 GMT, kwda...@mercury.interpath.com (Kevin W.
> >Davidson) wrote :
>
> >>Well for one thing, the decimal expansion of PI is infinite and therefore
> >>could not be written in any book.
>
> >While pi is not in the Bible, the Bible is in pi.
> >Pi's expansion is infinite, so all texts are coded in there, sooner or
> >(much) later.
>
> I don't see how that is necessarily true. The decimal expansion of PI
> might, or might not have the Bible encoded in it.
>
> 1/3 has an infinite decimal expansion (.3333333333333) but the Bible
> is obviously not in it.

Depends on what code you are using.
Here is one you can try..
a=3 b=33 c=333 d=3333 ...
Get the picture ? ;)


Bjorn Now about to read the koran from 1/7.

It is loading more messages.
0 new messages