On Creationism

[Descalzo]

Originally Posted by Vorian Atreides

My picture of God is the one with the smite button.

RN

[yankeetripper]

Originally Posted by Descalzo

I bet there are. But you've seen how well-versed I am in this. Do you know of any? StE hasn't been beck to help us.

Doesn't bible say pi = 3.0 or some thing stupid like that? Good thing we don't use the bible to teach math or engineering.

[Roger Wilco]

Originally Posted by yankeetripper

Doesn't bible say pi = 3.0 or some thing stupid like that? Good thing we don't use the bible to teach math or engineering.

That could easly have been explained as a rounding difference.

[Roger Wilco]

Originally Posted by Descalzo

I bet there are. But you've seen how well-versed I am in this. Do you know of any? StE hasn't been beck to help us.

Any faulty things in the bible? Plenty.

Some parts are arguably not meant literally, for example the sun being created after vegetation in genesis. Thats a fault but not necessarily one that would cause a believer to have a problem, if they didn't take this literally that is.

I am pretty sure it says that rabbits and hyraxes (sp?) chew their cud, which they don't. That seems to have been meant literally, but if you don't hold to the infallability of the writers of the bible then this may not be a problem for you either. But if you don't hold by the infallability of the authors of the bible then I am sure you would readily admit the bible has faults in which case there would be no use in pointing it out in the first place.

ETA: There are also discrepancies between books where one says one thing happened and another says something different happened. The fate of Judas for example. For the most part though I don't believe the bible writers were writing history, but rather adding events, taking away or changing details or context of events or passages so that that they can make a theological claim or point. I don't think many biblical authors felt that this type of story making was problematic, since it was meant to achieve a higher goal, to teach their version of what God wants to the people.

[r. mutt]

Originally Posted by Buck

Number of degrees in a triangle is testable/verifiable.

to this and anyone who doesn't understand that the number of degrees in a circle equaling 360 is axiomatic, and all else derives from that. In some alternate universe I'm sure someone could have started with a circle having 420 degrees (because they had six toes on one paw and seven on the other) and all sorts of different but similar facts would spring from that.

[Descalzo]

Originally Posted by Roger Wilco

Any faulty things in the bible?

No. I thought we were talking about things formerly thought to be wrong with the Bible but later turned out not to be. Like Pontius Pilate not having been a real dude, but then he turned out to be one. Or finding lions in the Bible but not finding bones in the groud, but then they found them (if I got it right, didn't find the link).

Pi doesn't count because that's just dumb. Everyone knows that Tau is better.

[Vorian Atreides]

Originally Posted by V1per41

IMO



Is not a triangle.

If the shortest distance between two points doesn't lie on a "straight line", you're going to have problems working geometry on a globe.

[Vorian Atreides]

Anyone who takes the Bible as "gospel truth" regarding science has missed the entire point of the message God intended with those historical accounts.

And 3 is a decent approximation of \pi.

[MyWifeThinksImGoodLooking]

Originally Posted by Vorian Atreides

If the shortest distance between two points lies on a "straight line", you're going to have problems working geometry on a globe.

No, a straight line is still the shortest distance even on a globe. While it isn't practicle to dig a tunnel from New York to Tokyo, a straight line would still be the shortest distance between the two cities.

[Vorian Atreides]

Originally Posted by MyWifeThinksImGoodLooking

No, a straight line is still the shortest distance even on a globe. While it isn't practicle to dig a tunnel from New York to Tokyo, a straight line would still be the shortest distance between the two cities.

True . . . I missed a very important word in my OP. (which is now fixed)