Evolution Poll

[seebs]

Originally posted by bonkers
Second Law of Thermodynamics (or the scie-
ntific law of decreasing order), every system of nature goes downhill from order to
disorder unless it has some kind of "motor" to take in a surplus of energy from outside,
or some kind if blue print to guide the energy into orderly growth. And since the the
evolutionary process has neither evolution is impossible.

No offense, but did you think at all about this before saying it? What would you call sunlight, if not an "external source of energy"? The regular patterns of sunlight, the irregular patterns of weather... These are all *easily* sufficient to count as "external energy".

Animal life cylcles which mirror the cycles of nature are a very good example of the way in which an external energy source imposes order on a thing.

 

[Ronin]

Second Law of Thermodynamics (or the scientific law of decreasing order), every system of nature goes downhill from order to
disorder unless it has some kind of "motor" to take in a surplus of energy from outside,
or some kind if blue print to guide the energy into orderly growth. And since the
evolutionary process has neither, evolution is impossible.

I do wish that creationists would come up with better arguments than merely rehash those that have been dispelled time and time again.

While it is true that the 2nd law of thermodynamics posits that a closed system always evolves from a state of order to a state of disorder and such a change may be quantified by measuring the change in entropy within the closed system, the biosphere, in which life developed and evolved is not a closed system. The work provided in counteracting the tendency towards disorder is produced by the Sun. Evolution is possible because the increase in order necessary for the development of complex biological structures is offset by an increase in disorder manifested by the continual burning of hydrogen fuel into heavier elements within the Sun's core.

Just imagine water freezing in an ice cube tray. If one were to observe the process without knowing that the environment in which this process was taking place was a freezer then one would come to the conclusion that the 2nd law of thermodynamics was being violated as randomly moving water molecules would assume orderly crystalline structures. However, work is done to make this transition possible and the agent responsible for this work is the compressor-condenser which expels waste heat to the outside world. In order to increase the order of water molecules flowing within the ice cube tray, the expended heat increases the disorder of the outside world and there is no violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The freezer environment is an open system just as the Earth's biosphere is. Now, can creationists finally but this foolish argument to rest?

 

[God Fixation]

Originally posted by TheBear
I think that evolution is FACT. The mechanism of evolution remains to be seen, with any certainty.


John

I personally think that was a false statement. Considering that a fact is something that has been observed and recorded to be true 100% without exception.

(my 2 cents)

 

[God Fixation]

I have a few questions for those of you who believe in evoloution...
Where did the space for the universe come from?

Where did matter come from?

Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?

How did matter get so perfectly organized?

Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?

When, where, why, and how did life come from dead matter?

When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?

With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?

Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kindsince this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?)

How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)

Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?

Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?

When, where, why, and how did:
*Single-celled plants become multi-celled? (Where are the two and three-celled intermediates?)
*Single-celled animals evolve?
*Fish change to amphibians?
*Amphibians change to reptiles?
*Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes,reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!)

How did the intermediate forms live?

When, where, why, how, and from what did:
*Whales evolve?
*Sea horses evolve?
*bats evolve?
*Eyes evolve?
*Ears evolve?

Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?

Which evolved first how, and how long, did it work without the others)?
The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body’s resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)?
The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?
The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?
DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?
The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose?
The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?
The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones?
The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system?
The immune system or the need for it?

There are many thousands of examples of symbiosis that defy an evolutionary explanation. Why must we teach students that evolution is the only explanation for these relationships?

How would evolution explain mimicry? Did the plants and animals develop mimicry by chance, by their intelligent choice, or by design?

When, where, why, and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc. would never evolve in the theory of evolution.

*How did photosynthesis evolve?

*How did thought evolve?

*How did flowering plants evolve, and from that?

*What kind of evolutionist are you? Why are you not one of the other eight or ten kinds?

What would you have said fifty years ago if I told you I had a living coelacanth in my aquarium?

*Is there one clear prediction of macroevolution that has proved true?

*What is so scientific about the idea of hydrogen as becoming human?

*Do you honestly believe that everything came from nothing?


After you have answered the preceding questions, please look carefully at your answers and thoughtfully consider the following questions.


Are you sure your answers are reasonable, right, and scientifically provable, or do you just believe that it may have happened the way you have answered? (Do these answers reflect your religion or your science?)

Do your answers show more or less faith than the person who says, "God must have designed it"?

Is it possible that an unseen Creator designed this universe? If God is excluded at the beginning of the discussion by your definition of science, how could it be shown that He did create the universe if He did?

Is it wise and fair to present the theory of evolution to students as fact?

What is the end result of a belief in evolution (lifestyle, society, attitude about others, eternal destiny, etc.)?

Do people accept evolution because of the following factors?
It is all they have been taught.
They like the freedom from God (no moral absolutes, etc.).
They are bound to support the theory for fear of losing their job or status or grade point average.
They are too proud to admit they are wrong.
Evolution is the only philosophy that can be used to justify their political agenda.

Should we continue to use outdated, disproved, questionable, or inconclusive evidences to support the theory of evolution because we don’t have a suitable substitute (Piltdown man, recapitulation, archaeopteryx, Lucy, Java man, Neanderthal man, horse evolution, vestigial organs, etc.)?

Should parents be allowed to require that evolution not be taught as fact in their school system unless equal time is given to other theories of origins (like divine creation)?

What are you risking if you are wrong? "Either there is a God or there is not. Both possibilities are frightening."

Why are many evolutionists afraid of the idea of creationism being presented in public schools? If we are not supposed to teach religion in schools, then why not get evolution out of the textbooks? It is just a religious worldview.

Aren’t you tired of faith in a system that cannot be true? Wouldn’t it be great to know the God who made you, and to accept His love and forgiveness?

Would you be interested, if I showed you from the Bible, how to have your sins forgiven and how to know for sure that you are going to Heaven?

 

[brt28006]

If I feel like it, I might get around to dignifying those same tired old questions with a response later. But until then, I'll answer a few that I didn't have to think about.

Ceolacanth - if you said, 50 years ago, that you had a live one in an aquarium. I'd have asked to see it, and upon seeing it, I'd say "hey great, just goes to show how resilient nature can be.

Piltdown Man - As far as I know, only Scientologists and the extremely stupid still believe in Piltdown Man. Are you either of those things, sir?

Evolution as fact - Teaching ANY science to be absolute fact is folly. I have never once encountered a teacher who taught evolution as the ultimate answer behind life.

Living matter coming from dead matter - Living matter did not arise from dead matter. It arose from INORGANIC matter. Probably by lightning or some other electrical source and heat source hitting the right spot in some pool of primordial ooze.

Similarities in design are more rationally explained by a common ancestor.

How thought evolved - by some other means than a god who wants only 1) praise all the time or 2) damning those who don't praise him all the time to hell. Think about it, free-thought is the most evil thing God gave us, if we must either do exactly what he says or go to hell.

What type of evolutionist am I - Eclectic, as many scientists are now. Many evolutionary theories have good parts and bad parts. My follow up question to you, sir, is what kind of creationist are you? Why are you not one of the eight or ten other kinds?

Everything coming from nothing - Nobody with a strong background in science believes that everything came from nothing. The Big Bang was the dispersement of all the matter to make the universe, which, prior to the blast had been condensed into a hyper-compacted space. The idea of everything coming from nothing is, however, exactly what six-day creationists believe (that is, God made everything from nothing.)

Laws of the universe - they've always been there, in one form or another.

Matters origin - hypercompacted matter was dispersed after the big bang. Matter itself had been there all along. The universe itself is technically matter, and its the only form of known matter where objects can exist simultaneously within it. You can't put two cars in the same parking place, but you can put a car in space (okay bad example, but the point is that the "matter" which makes up the physical reality of space can have other objects existing within it.)

Why are many evolutionists afraid of the idea of creationism being presented in public schools? If we are not supposed to teach religion in schools, then why not get evolution out of the textbooks? It is just a religious worldview.

Non-creationists are afraid of creation being presented in schools as a religious truth because it ignores the rules of science. Any decent scientist would be glad to look at real evidence of creation, but if that evidence is only verifiable by the Bible, then it ain't evidence.
BTW, evolution is not a religion. I think we've made that quite clear by now on this forum. I'm a Druid, I believe in evolution. Seebs is a Christian, they believe in evolution. Evolution is a scientific belief. Science and religion must never be intermixed, plain and simple.

 

[LouisBooth]

"Living matter coming from dead matter - Living matter did not arise from dead matter. It arose from INORGANIC matter. Probably by lightning or some other electrical source and heat source hitting the right spot in some pool of primordial ooze. "

Which is impossible without God's direct intervention. 1. the atmosphere would have killed it and 2 dead mater is inorganic matter Just depends on your definations.

"Similarities in design are more rationally explained by a common ancestor. "

Um...not really.

"Laws of the universe - they've always been there, in one form or another. "

Hmm...then can you explain how they were broken by the instances before the big bang?


"Non-creationists are afraid of creation being presented in schools as a religious truth because it ignores the rules of science. "

Yup, just as much as evoultion does

 

[God Fixation]

Originally posted by brt28006
If I feel like it, I might get around to dignifying those same tired old questions with a response later. But until then, I'll answer a few that I didn't have to think about.

Ceolacanth - if you said, 50 years ago, that you had a live one in an aquarium. I'd have asked to see it, and upon seeing it, I'd say "hey great, just goes to show how resilient nature can be.

Piltdown Man - As far as I know, only Scientologists and the extremely stupid still believe in Piltdown Man. Are you either of those things, sir?

Evolution as fact - Teaching ANY science to be absolute fact is folly. I have never once encountered a teacher who taught evolution as the ultimate answer behind life.

Living matter coming from dead matter - Living matter did not arise from dead matter. It arose from INORGANIC matter. Probably by lightning or some other electrical source and heat source hitting the right spot in some pool of primordial ooze.

Similarities in design are more rationally explained by a common ancestor.

How thought evolved - by some other means than a god who wants only 1) praise all the time or 2) damning those who don't praise him all the time to hell. Think about it, free-thought is the most evil thing God gave us, if we must either do exactly what he says or go to hell.

What type of evolutionist am I - Eclectic, as many scientists are now. Many evolutionary theories have good parts and bad parts. My follow up question to you, sir, is what kind of creationist are you? Why are you not one of the eight or ten other kinds?

Everything coming from nothing - Nobody with a strong background in science believes that everything came from nothing. The Big Bang was the dispersement of all the matter to make the universe, which, prior to the blast had been condensed into a hyper-compacted space. The idea of everything coming from nothing is, however, exactly what six-day creationists believe (that is, God made everything from nothing.)

Laws of the universe - they've always been there, in one form or another.

Matters origin - hypercompacted matter was dispersed after the big bang. Matter itself had been there all along. The universe itself is technically matter, and its the only form of known matter where objects can exist simultaneously within it. You can't put two cars in the same parking place, but you can put a car in space (okay bad example, but the point is that the "matter" which makes up the physical reality of space can have other objects existing within it.)



Non-creationists are afraid of creation being presented in schools as a religious truth because it ignores the rules of science. Any decent scientist would be glad to look at real evidence of creation, but if that evidence is only verifiable by the Bible, then it ain't evidence.
BTW, evolution is not a religion. I think we've made that quite clear by now on this forum. I'm a Druid, I believe in evolution. Seebs is a Christian, they believe in evolution. Evolution is a scientific belief. Science and religion must never be intermixed, plain and simple.

 

[God Fixation]

If I feel like it, I might get around to dignifying those same tired old questions with a response later. But until then, I'll answer a few that I didn't have to think about.
Thank you.
Piltdown Man - As far as I know, only Scientologists and the extremely stupid still believe in Piltdown Man. Ah, but for a long time it was used as 'evidence' 'supporting' evoloution, along with those other 'skeletons'(which on several accounts consisted of a couple shards of broken bone) along with carbon dating and the geological collum. ( a great example of circular reasoning) Not good publicity for evolutionists in the scientific community.
Are you either of those things, sir?("Scientologists" or the "extremely stupid")
First I would like to point out that the little pink symbol near my name indicates that I am in fact female, now I think I should be asking YOU if you are either "extremely stupid" or not very observant...I hope it is the later. And no, I do not believe that the piltdown man is legitimate nor imaginative at best, meerly feeding off of someone els's starvation in making their theory look worthy of consideration...Rather pathetic.
Evolution as fact - Teaching ANY science to be absolute fact is folly. I have never once encountered a teacher who taught evolution as the ultimate answer behind life.

"millions of years ago..." as said in countless elementry, junior and high school's text books. (proof available upon request)They state it as fact. A statement. Were they there? Nooooooooo. It would be like me telling you, "I have a dog and his name is spot." When in fact, I just want a dog named spot. Very different. Wouldn't you agree?

Living matter coming from dead matter - Living matter did not arise from dead matter. It arose from INORGANIC matter. Probably by lightning or some other electrical source and heat source hitting the right spot in some pool of primordial ooze. My dictionary says inorganic is matter made of non living material. Now last time I checked there is only one other alternative to 'alive': Dead, not alive, lifeless.

Similarities in design are more rationally explained by a common ancestor.
Your opinion, I will respect it.
How thought evolved - by some other means than a god who wants only 1) praise all the time That is a priveledge that we have. I know, you don't think so. 2) damning those who don't praise him all the time to hell.I don't know where you are getting your iformation but I don't think we are talking about the same God. My God would never send someone to hell for that. Hell was made for satan. The only reason a person would be sent to hell is because it is impossible for sin to enter heaven, and unless we accept Jesus' payment for that sin, we will face that unfortunate fate. Think about it, free-thought is the most evil thing God gave us, if we must either do exactly what he says or go to hell.
Evil? No, I am sorry but free will is in no way evil. God gave it to us so that we could make decisions on our own, experiencing emotion and that free will. We have the choice to be sinful or not. God merely Gave free will to us, He is in no way responsible for what we do with it.

What type of evolutionist am I - Eclectic, as many scientists are now. Many evolutionary theories have good parts and bad parts. My follow up question to you, sir, is what kind of creationist are you? Why are you not one of the eight or ten other kinds? I am not a Creationist, I am a Christian, and yes there is a differance. There is only one kind of Christian you are or you aren't, sadly there are many imitations but it doesn't change the truth.

Everything coming from nothing - Nobody with a strong background in science believes that everything came from nothing. The Big Bang was the dispersement of all the matter to make the universe, which, prior to the blast had been condensed into a hyper-compacted space. The idea of everything coming from nothing is, however, exactly what six-day creationists believe (that is, God made everything from nothing.) Ah, but we christians say it with faith and have no need to explain it away. I am curious, where did that matter come from?

Laws of the universe - they've always been there, in one form or another.
Would a law be a law if it was compromised or changed in some way or another? Which would have to be in order for the Big bang to have happened.

Matters origin - hypercompacted matter was dispersed after the big bang. Matter itself had been there all along. The universe itself is technically matter, and its the only form of known matter where objects can exist simultaneously within it. You can't put two cars in the same parking place, but you can put a car in space (okay bad example, but the point is that the "matter" which makes up the physical reality of space can have other objects existing within it.)
uh, I was under the impression that space is the lack-of, a vacume, besides the particles of dust,planets, stars and what not, NOTHING. I think you're psyching yourself out.


Non-creationists are afraid of creation being presented in schools as a religious truth because it ignores the rules of science. Like...?

Any decent scientist would be glad to look at real evidence of creation, but if that evidence is only verifiable by the Bible, then it ain't evidence. Prove the Bible wrong, if it isn't truthful evidence you won't have any problems.
BTW, evolution is not a religion. I think we've made that quite clear by now on this forum. I'm a Druid, I believe in evolution. Seebs is a Christian, they believe in evolution. Evolution is a scientific belief. Science and religion must never be intermixed, plain and simple.
Say as you wish. "what is in a name? A rose by any other name would still smell as sweet."...

 

[bogomip]

Wacky! Thats what evolutionists are!
I know because I have seen electric switches in geodes over 500,000 years old.
I have seen quality artifacts that were pulled from coal mines; by quality i mean they could have been made today. I have seen paintings that rival our best classical artists that were unearthed in Greece dated much older than should be.
These Facts point to a very simple answer.
The Evolution theory is BUNK! These discoveries are real and they blow the evolution theory out of the water.
There were previous civilisations, the theory of evolution is merely the spouting of theorists who desperately want to control and explain their lives.
Testament literally means covenant. Our Bible is our agreement or covenant with God. It is not a calendar nor a complete history of the world; it is what God wants us to use as our guide while here.
Sorry to burst your evolution bubble but even scientists know that less than one year ago a human skeleton was found next to our supposed "ancestors skeletons".
I believe in adaptive change due to environment, but the evolution theory is broken and cannot be fixed if one uses all the evidence.


God Bless and Take Care.

 

[brt28006]

Originally posted by God Fixation

Ah, but for a long time it was used as 'evidence' 'supporting' evoloution, along with those other 'skeletons'(which on several accounts consisted of a couple shards of broken bone) along with carbon dating and the geological collum. ( a great example of circular reasoning) Not good publicity for evolutionists in the scientific community.

But it was discarded as soon as it was positively determined to be wrong. Actions like that are what define proper science.

First I would like to point out that the little pink symbol near my name indicates that I am in fact female, now I think I should be asking YOU if you are either "extremely stupid" or not very observant...I hope it is the later.

I am sure that that symbol was not there when I checked originally. Although I've made that mistake in the past, only I called a guy "ma'am". Not highpoints of my day.

And no, I do not believe that the piltdown man is legitimate nor imaginative at best, meerly feeding off of someone els's starvation in making their theory look worthy of consideration...Rather pathetic.

Piltdown man was made by a construction worker, not a scientist... in fact, it was made in order to trick scientists into believing they had found the "missing link".

"millions of years ago..." as said in countless elementry, junior and high school's text books. (proof available upon request)They state it as fact. A statement. Were they there? Nooooooooo.

Large ages are a staple part of modern scientific theory in the biological and geological fields. Since the prevailing theory at this time contains large ages, we include it in the schools... but it's still just theory.

My dictionary says inorganic is matter made of non living material. Now last time I checked there is only one other alternative to 'alive': Dead, not alive, lifeless.

Non-living and dead are EXTREMELY different. My shirt is non-living, but it was NEVER living, therefore it cannot be dead. Also, dead material is still organic.

Its like in law; there is legal, non-legal, and illegal, if that helps.

How thought evolved - by some other means than a god who wants only 1) praise all the time That is a priveledge that we have. I know, you don't think so. 2) damning those who don't praise him all the time to hell.I don't know where you are getting your iformation but I don't think we are talking about the same God. My God would never send someone to hell for that. Hell was made for satan. The only reason a person would be sent to hell is because it is impossible for sin to enter heaven, and unless we accept Jesus' payment for that sin, we will face that unfortunate fate. Think about it, free-thought is the most evil thing God gave us, if we must either do exactly what he says or go to hell.
Evil? No, I am sorry but free will is in no way evil. God gave it to us so that we could make decisions on our own, experiencing emotion and that free will. We have the choice to be sinful or not. God merely Gave free will to us, He is in no way responsible for what we do with it.

Your religious opinion. Mine differs, and as such this particular argument is unresolvable.

I am not a Creationist, I am a Christian, and yes there is a differance. There is only one kind of Christian you are or you aren't, sadly there are many imitations but it doesn't change the truth.

I'd say about 99% of all Christians I've ever met view the Bible as being a book of symbolism and metaphor. That doesn't make them right, or wrong necessarily, but based on my own personal experience (so in other words, the actual figure might be way different), radical Christians are a microscopic minority of all total "Christians". Every church I ever attended prior to converting out of Christianity used the teachings of the Bible in a less-than-literal way.

Ah, but we christians say it with faith and have no need to explain it away. I am curious, where did that matter come from?

Matter is a constant. It has always existed, and always will exist.
For example, the matter making a house that was vaporized by an atomic bomb still exists... although now it exists in about a trillion particles over a large distance.
One of the defining points of matter is that it cannot be created or destroyed.

Laws of the universe - they've always been there, in one form or another.
Would a law be a law if it was compromised or changed in some way or another? Which would have to be in order for the Big bang to have happened.

I said they'd always existed in one form or another; not in one form only.
Laws of physics can variate a bit, especially at extremes of either temperature or pressure, both of which were present at the Big Bang.

uh, I was under the impression that space is the lack-of [matter], a vacume, .

This may or may not be true. Last year, the nobel prize in physics went to a group of scientists who proved the existence of a new (new as in heretofore unknown to mankind) form of matter (Bose-Einstein Condensate - http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/supernova_lab_010723.html )

Like...?

Mainly not allowing their research to be critically evaluated by the rest of the scientific community. Following that, using evidence that has already been disproved time and time again. Following that, filling in the holes in the theory with "God performed a miracle there" or some other nonverifiable claim. Following that, it is a religious doctrine, and as such has no place in the multicultural environment of modern American schools or science.
The day American children are forced to accept a God other than the one they themselves choose to worship will surely signal that freedom here has been fatally wounded.

Prove the Bible wrong, if it isn't truthful evidence you won't have any problems.

The authors of the Bible did not have the concept of Pi (3.141579 etc.) and because of that they make a mathematical error in the Old Testament. I just gave an example of Biblical errancy, unless of course you care to claim Pi is not real.
(the exact verse of this error is located on another thread, if anyone knows where and finds it before I do, PLEASE post it again on THIS thread, thanks)

Say as you wish. "what is in a name? A rose by any other name would still smell as sweet."...

I still don't get this statement.


On to other business:

LouisBooth: (I think I answered all your statements along with God Fixation's), except for the part where you say evolution goes against rules of science. I personally do not see how it does.

 

[God Fixation]

"The Bible and the Value of "PI"
Does the Bible contain a mathematical error?

I Kings 7:23–26 and II Chronicles 4:2–5 describe a huge brass bowl built by King Solomon. If the diameter of this bowl was 10 cubits, then the circumference should have been 31.415926...cubits, not just 30 cubits! Any math student will tell you that the circumference of a circle is found by taking the diameter times Pi (3..141592653589793...). This apparent mathematical error caused me, as a new Christian, to doubt the accuracy of the Bible.

The answer is so simple!

The diameter of 10 cubits is from outer rim to outer rim, the way anyone would measure a circular object. The circumference of 30 cubits, however, was of the inner circle, after subtracting the thickness of the brass (two handbreadths—one for each side) from which the bowl was made. This would be the number needed to calculate the volume of water.

Check for yourself.

Substitute the length of your cubit (elbow to longest fingertip) for the letter C in the following formula, and solve for H.

30C / p + 2H = 10C

The width of your handbreadth will be the result. For example, my cubit is 20 inches long. If I had built the brass bowl, the outer diameter would have a circumference of 600 inches (30 x 20 inches) and a diameter of 190.986 inches (600 inches / 3.14159). The difference between the two diameters is 9.014 inches (two of my handbreadths).

Rest assured God makes no mistakes, mathematical or otherwise. The Scriptures do not contain error. By the way, Solomon built this sea in 1000 B.C., long before the Greeks rediscovered Pi (p). We may not understand some things at first glance, but the problem is with us, not with the Bible. Please be sure you are on the solid foundation of God’s Word, saved by the blood of Christ."

~My thanks to Dr. Dino for this article
Brt, you still did not give me an example. I would like to hear what you have to say about the validity (or lack there of) of scripture.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by God Fixation
"The Bible and the Value of "PI"
Does the Bible contain a mathematical error?

I Kings 7:23–26 and II Chronicles 4:2–5 describe a huge brass bowl built by King Solomon. If the diameter of this bowl was 10 cubits, then the circumference should have been 31.415926...cubits, not just 30 cubits! Any math student will tell you that the circumference of a circle is found by taking the diameter times Pi (3..141592653589793...). This apparent mathematical error caused me, as a new Christian, to doubt the accuracy of the Bible.

The answer is so simple!

The diameter of 10 cubits is from outer rim to outer rim, the way anyone would measure a circular object. The circumference of 30 cubits, however, was of the inner circle, after subtracting the thickness of the brass (two handbreadths—one for each side) from which the bowl was made. This would be the number needed to calculate the volume of water.

Check for yourself.

Substitute the length of your cubit (elbow to longest fingertip) for the letter C in the following formula, and solve for H.

30C / p + 2H = 10C

The width of your handbreadth will be the result. For example, my cubit is 20 inches long. If I had built the brass bowl, the outer diameter would have a circumference of 600 inches (30 x 20 inches) and a diameter of 190.986 inches (600 inches / 3.14159). The difference between the two diameters is 9.014 inches (two of my handbreadths).

Rest assured God makes no mistakes, mathematical or otherwise. The Scriptures do not contain error. By the way, Solomon built this sea in 1000 B.C., long before the Greeks rediscovered Pi (p). We may not understand some things at first glance, but the problem is with us, not with the Bible. Please be sure you are on the solid foundation of God’s Word, saved by the blood of Christ."

~My thanks to Dr. Dino for this article
Brt, you still did not give me an example. I would like to hear what you have to say about the validity (or lack there of) of scripture.

Actually, this is a very unlikely explanation; my preferred explanation is that the numbers are only given to one significant figure. I don't see why it's clear at all that you should use two different values for the diameter; one for the diameter itself, and the other for the measured circumference. If anything, you'd measure the other way around - the circumference would be the outer rim, to tell you about how much metal you need, and the diameter would be the inner rim, to show you the capacity.

As to validity? I don't know. I don't particularly believe the Bible to be 100% inerrent, especially in translation, but if you take the time to study it, think about it, and consider issues of interpretation, it's quite good in its field.

 

[God Fixation]

I belive the measuring of the inner circumfrence was to calculate the volume of water the bowl could hold. How was this question regarding pi supposed to taint my argument, or for that matter further yours? A little curious...

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by God Fixation
I belive the measuring of the inner circumfrence was to calculate the volume of water the bowl could hold.

Why not just measure the inner diameter, since that'll give you the same result? I think it's unlikely that the measurements are for two different circles; I think it's much more likely that the numbers are just plain approximate.

How was this question regarding pi supposed to taint my argument, or for that matter further yours? A little curious...

Some literalists hold that every last word in the Bible is literally true and *exact*. The value of pi being (arguably) wrong would certainly weigh heavily against such a belief.

Really, though, I think it's fairly clear that the Bible as a whole must be understood through study, and no small amount of inference, and that some of it is metaphorical, or allegorical.

Sometimes, the way in which people react to evolution as an "attack" on faith seems to me as though someone were saying to Jesus "But can you name this prodigal son? Because, if this is just some story, and didn't really happen, then everything you've taught us is a lie!". It's missing the point; not all stories teach the same things, or the same way.

 

[God Fixation]

Originally posted by seebs


Why not just measure the inner diameter, since that'll give you the same result? I think it's unlikely that the measurements are for two different circles; I think it's much more likely that the numbers are just plain approximate.

Your opinion and I will respect it.

 

[iLoveLife]

I kind of have gotten alot of evidence to make me believe evolution is in fact true. Yet... I do like to get other evidence in prooving it is not true. I am not sure in what I think. Im just confused

 

[seebs]

Oops, double post.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by iLoveLife
I kind of have gotten alot of evidence to make me believe evolution is in fact true. Yet... I do like to get other evidence in prooving it is not true. I am not sure in what I think. Im just confused

What are you confused about iLL?

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

Anita said: "I think there is no way one can accept evolution if they believe the Bible."

You are right. That is why I don't believe in the Bible (other then that it is a collection of myths, legends and histories). I believe in God. 

 

Oh BTW Anita, fossil evidence of dinosaur hearts exist - they had four chambered hearts like birds (as do thier archosaurian relatives the crocodiles)

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by Late_Cretaceous
Anita said: "I think there is no way one can accept evolution if they believe the Bible."

You are right. That is why I don't believe in the Bible (other then that it is a collection of myths, legends and histories). I beleive in God.

Evolution does not disprove the Bible, but supports it in some ways:

1.  The story of Noah's ark.  Simple calculations find it impossible all existing species could have crammed into that small of a space.  Only evolution could account for the varied species we observe today, originating from ancestors carried on the ark given the dimensions described within the story.

2.  The different races of man.  If mankind descended from a single couple, only evolution could explain the existance of different races.

To sum it up:  The Bible doesn't disprove Evolutionary Science, Evolutionary Science doesn't disprove the Bible.

And why would anyone state that the Bible can't be believed along with any other science such as Astronomy, Chemistry, Biology, Mathematics...etc..etc...

Amazing that some still view science a threat to theological beliefs.  Didn't the early church make the same mistake with Galileo?  Excommunicating him for his scientific discoveries?

Regards,

Smilin