Facts for evolutionists

[Belk]

Chalnoth and Thaumaturgy - Thanks for your replies, I'll respond when I get a bit more time. For now I just want to address this.

Now I'm no biblical inerrantist but this doesn't seem to be the best argument against the bible. If the diameter was actually anywhere within the range of 9.5-9.7 then "10 and 30" would be accurate to the nearest whole unit. Sure they could have put more accuracy in but it still wouldn't have given the proper value of pi. Maybe they could have quoted the accuracy they were working to or given the series that calculates the value of pi but this isn't a maths textbook.

It is not a science textbook either, which would seem to be where some people run into problems.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Chalnoth and Thaumaturgy - Thanks for your replies, I'll respond when I get a bit more time. For now I just want to address this.

Now I'm no biblical inerrantist but this doesn't seem to be the best argument against the bible. If the diameter was actually anywhere within the range of 9.5-9.7 then "10 and 30" would be accurate to the nearest whole unit. Sure they could have put more accuracy in but it still wouldn't have given the proper value of pi. Maybe they could have quoted the accuracy they were working to or given the series that calculates the value of pi but this isn't a maths textbook.

IIRC, other civilizations had a better value before that. Beside if 10 cubits is about 15 feet, then those measure with a 30 cubit rope would have come up a little more than 2 feet short. Seems to me that that is hard to overlook. I suppose if they thought pi was 3 and never measured the circumference they might have calculated 30. I don't know what the hebrew says, but the KJV translates it as :

And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.

This sound to me like they measured and came up short. To be fair though, other versions translate it away -- that could be because the language is more ambiguous or idiomatic than the KJV gave it credit for.

For me, the point is this: If God wanted the Bible flawless, he could have merely said it was 10 cubits in diameter and dropped any reference to the circumference thus eliminating endless debate.

 

[Chalnoth]

Now I'm no biblical inerrantist but this doesn't seem to be the best argument against the bible. If the diameter was actually anywhere within the range of 9.5-9.7 then "10 and 30" would be accurate to the nearest whole unit. Sure they could have put more accuracy in but it still wouldn't have given the proper value of pi. Maybe they could have quoted the accuracy they were working to or given the series that calculates the value of pi but this isn't a maths textbook.

While true, any writer aware of the proper ratio of circumference to diameter wouldn't write it as 30 to 10.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Chalnoth and Thaumaturgy - Thanks for your replies, I'll respond when I get a bit more time. For now I just want to address this.

Now I'm no biblical inerrantist but this doesn't seem to be the best argument against the bible. If the diameter was actually anywhere within the range of 9.5-9.7 then "10 and 30" would be accurate to the nearest whole unit. Sure they could have put more accuracy in but it still wouldn't have given the proper value of pi. Maybe they could have quoted the accuracy they were working to or given the series that calculates the value of pi but this isn't a maths textbook.

"Significant Figures" is precisely why I don't prefer to use that line of reasoning to show error in the Bible.

However, it does amount to, what a difference of about 1.4 cubits (?) which works out to nearly 2 feet (assuming of course that we are talking about a nominal 18" cubit).

I've seen an interesting suggestion that the diameter measurement was outside edge to outside edge while the circumfrence was a circumfrence of the interior of the bowl (LINKY), which is a nice way to allow for the ancient Jews to have been incapable of "noticing" a 2' deficit, but smacks of "post hoc" justification.

Still, in all, it is a weak argument to make against the Bible. It does kind of rest on human error and precision in measurement. Not the most helpful for the inerrant word of God, but that's only a problem for those who take a hyper-super-literal interpretation of the Bible's inerrancy.

Again, the pi=3 controversy is only problematic if one doesn't allow for human involvement in the Bible or Biblical history. With humans, all errors and approximations are possible!

 

[Chalnoth]

Just to clarify the issue: the issue is not one of empirical measurement. There is no question that rough empirical measurement could result in the proportions written. The issue is that the author was apparently unaware of the nature of pi.

 

[MasterOfKrikkit]

Just to clarify the issue: the issue is not one of empirical measurement. There is no question that rough empirical measurement could result in the proportions written. The issue is that the author was apparently unaware of the nature of pi.

Exactly. This point needs to be stressed when this issue comes up. Remember when AV "challenged" us to write the "pi=3" verse? Several people did it just fine (AV didn't realize it, of course, but I think someone may have finally got it through to him) precisely by leaving off the circumference altogether. Anyone who knows basic geometry knows that giving both is redundant (and impossible without appealing to some precision limitation).

I've seen an interesting suggestion that the diameter measurement was outside edge to outside edge while the circumfrence was a circumfrence of the interior of the bowl (LINKY), which is a nice way to allow for the ancient Jews to have been incapable of "noticing" a 2' deficit, but smacks of "post hoc" justification.

Back up a page. RTooty tried that one.

Still, in all, it is a weak argument to make against the Bible.

Non-uber-literal, sure. But many here -- including AV (I'm pretty sure), even though he "interprets" the "literal" Bible -- think that the Bible is the perfect and inerrant Word Of God(TM). Why would an omniscient and omnipotent (and honest) God allow a mistake, when it's so easily avoided (see above)?

 

[NailsII]

Let me remind you, that the most common human mutation is CANCER.

Incorrect, the most common mutations will be of no consequence as very little DNA is active at any one time in any cell.
And around half of human DNA is not used at all, so at least half of all mutations must have no effect.

* edit - sorry, just noticed that Vene has answered this quite neatly very early in the thread *