Myth About the Bible - Busted!

[sjastro]

Since π is an irrational number with an infinite number of decimal places, a geometrical model representation as found in Kings will by definition be an approximation.
Similarly the Babylonians, Egyptians, Persians, Greeks, Indians and Chinese used geometrical models to calculate π to various degrees of accuracy.
Although the Greeks introduced the idea of the irrational number, π was proven to be an irrational number in the 18th century.

In the 14th century Indian mathematicians who were centuries ahead of their Western European counterparts in the field of trigonometry found inverse trigonometric functions such as arctan(x) could be expressed as a series expansion from which π could be expressed as the series.

View attachment 355413

This series was found by the Indian mathematician Madhava in the 14th century and independently discovered by Isaac Newton’s great rival Gottfried Leibnitz three hundred years later.
By summing more terms in series resulted in a greater accuracy of π.

When π was found to be irrational the series was modified to the following.

View attachment 355418

What this equation states π is a limit, since the number of terms summed can only be finite the more terms summed the closer the limit is reached without ever attaining it.

This is illustrated by a computer code I wrote up for the Madhava-Leibnitz series summing it from 1 term to 20000 terms in increments of 10.
Note the summed terms will never reach the value of π irrespective of how many terms I used to sum the series.

View attachment 355415​

Last June π was calculated to 202 trillion digits based on this hypergeometric equation.

They did it again: Tech publisher keeps on breaking Pi Calculation World Record — they almost doubled the previous one, reaching 202 trillion digits in 100 days and used 1.5PB of SSD storage

Previous record of 105 trillion digits broken again

www.techradar.com

The difference between the 14th century equation to calculate π and this late 20th century equation is that while it took around 20000 iterations for the calculated value of π to converge to a value reasonably close to the 'true value' of π, it took only 1 iteration for the computer code I wrote up with the 20th century equation.

​

Plotting the graph uses double precision floating point numbers which can only use numbers up to 17 decimal places, at least 30 decimal places is required to see differences between the calculated and 'true value' of π up to four iterations.

 

[David Lamb]

And such a vast output of energy to do such a thing would be easy to verify and find, since it would a catastrophic release of energy. And we find none of that in the world.

Not now perhaps, but the bible talks about something it refers to as "the fountains of the great deep" which were broken up. This would surely have released a lot of energy. We know the sort of damage a merely local flood can do, carrying cars, bridges, and much more in their wake, and a world-wide flood would do so much more.

 

[BCP1928]

Not now perhaps, but the bible talks about something it refers to as "the fountains of the great deep" which were broken up. This would surely have released a lot of energy. We know the sort of damage a merely local flood can do, carrying cars, bridges, and much more in their wake, and a world-wide flood would do so much more.

According to the YECs, those "fountains" erupted with such force that they ejected chunks of the Earth into space which formed what we know as the asteroid belt.

 

[David Lamb]

According to the YECs, those "fountains" erupted with such force that they ejected chunks of the Earth into space which formed what we know as the asteroid belt.

I have never heard that before. I believe in a comparatively young earth, but I don't believe that, and although I have read books and watched DVDs by young earth creationists, I have never come across one of them writing or saying such a thing. For example, Answers in Genesis, a young earth organisation, on their website have an article about asteroids and meteors, which says: "Asteroids were part of the original solar system that God created 6,000 years ago. It appears that collisions broke pieces from asteroids and sent some of them to earth. By studying the makeup of these rocks, creationists hope to understand what the solar system was like when it was newly created."

 

[BCP1928]

I have never heard that before. I believe in a comparatively young earth, but I don't believe that, and although I have read books and watched DVDs by young earth creationists, I have never heard one of them write or say such a thing. For example, Answers in Genesis, a young earth organisation, on their website have an article about asteroids and meteors, which says: "Asteroids were part of the original solar system that God created 6,000 years ago. It appears that collisions broke pieces from asteroids and sent some of them to earth. By studying the makeup of these rocks, creationists hope to understand what the solar system was like when it was newly created."

I believe the asteroid belt thing was part of Walt Brown's "hydroplate theory." It's been a while since I followed YECism in any detail. I never got it, anyway, never understood what it was for.

 

[David Lamb]

I believe the asteroid belt thing was part of Walt Brown's "hydroplate theory." It's been a while since I followed YECism in any detail. I never got it, anyway, never understood what it was for.

So where did you get the idea that young earth creationists believe that the asteroids were formed as a result of the breaking up of the fountains of the great deep? Or do you mean that because it has been a while since you followed such things in detail, you have forgotten where you came across it?

 

[BCP1928]

So where did you get the idea that young earth creationists believe that the asteroids were formed as a result of the breaking up of the fountains of the great deep? Or do you mean that because it has been a while since you followed such things in detail, you have forgotten where you came across it?

As I said, my best recollection is that it was part of the hydroplane theory, but I could be wrong. Does it matter? it's no sillier than any other YEC theory.

 

[David Lamb]

As I said, my best recollection is that it was part of the hydroplane theory, but I could be wrong. Does it matter? it's no sillier than any other YEC theory.

Of course it matters. If you are saying that people who believe that Creation is not billions of years old also believe that the asteroids were formed by the fountains of the great deep being broken up at the time of the Flood, then you are misrepresenting what others believe, and that matters. I suggest it is not very polite to tell other Christians that their beliefs concerning creation are silly - surely we can disagree without insulting each other.

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't really think that's how probability works... but I'll be honest, I do not really care either way.

So you're saying the Ark should have gone straight to the tallest mountain on earth and run aground?

 

[dlamberth]

Of course it matters. If you are saying that people who believe that Creation is not billions of years old also believe that the asteroids were formed by the fountains of the great deep being broken up at the time of the Flood, then you are misrepresenting what others believe, and that matters. I suggest it is not very polite to tell other Christians that their beliefs concerning creation are silly - surely we can disagree without insulting each other.

One member here says that asteroid caused craters are the result of a cosmic wide snowball type of fight amongst angels. How am I to take that any other way but silly? It's the idea that I'm calling silly, not the person. There's a difference.

 

[AV1611VET]

One member here says that asteroid caused craters are the result of a cosmic wide snowball type of fight amongst angels. How am I to take that any other way but silly? It's the idea that I'm calling silly, not the person. There's a difference.

Daniel 10:12 Then said he unto me, Fear not, Daniel: for from the first day that thou didst set thine heart to understand, and to chasten thyself before thy God, thy words were heard, and I am come for thy words.
13 But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia.

Jude 9 Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.

 

[CoreyD]

?

In other words, since you said this or that would be the case, that means you are not saying probably, or likely, or maybe...
In which case, you should be able to provide the results of the experience.
Otherwise, you are guessing, and do not know.

I think we got mixed up someplace. I was saying that Everest couldn't form in 6,000 years, not 1 million years.

Yes, I understand what you said.
If however, you think within a period of 1 million years mountains, including Everest could reach their peak, then you are basically agreeing with me, because, within 1 million could be 900,000... 600,000... 100,000... 75,000... etc.

Is 6,000 far fetched, or a leap of logic?
Only if one assumes that every movement was a constant, gradual process.

The presence of marine sediments in the Altiplano indicate that the region, which now averages about 3,800 meters (12,500 feet) in elevation, sat just below sea level about 65 million years ago. Between 29 million and 25 million years ago, sediments now lying high in the Altiplano were being deposited at elevations below 500 meters, the new analyses suggest. Growth of the Andes was slow between 25 million and 10 million years ago, but then between 10 million and 6 million years ago — the blink of a geological eye — the landscape rose about 2.5 kilometers, the researchers report in the June 6 Science.

If my calculations are correct, that is 2.5 kilometers in 4 million years.
Which is 0.625 kilometers in 1 million years.
Which is an elevation of 2,051 feet in 1 million years.

Mount Everest is 29,032 feet tall.
Since I am not very good at Math, you can work it out.
If Mount Everest was 15,000 feet high 6,000 years ago, could it not have risen to its current height, if the conditions were not as assumed - a consistent, slow gradual process?

 

[CoreyD]

Literally three people told you where the issues are. You just keep ignoring it and announcing you’re right.

I'm not doing that. If I ignored anything, I would be taking your approach, which is simply make accusation..
I'm challenging you to defend your claims. Accusing me isn't making a defense of your arguments.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

I'm not doing that. If I ignored anything, I would be taking your approach, which is simply make accusation..
I'm challenging you to defend your claims. Accusing me isn't making a defense of your arguments.

I did, multiple times

 

[CoreyD]

I don't know whether that was being proposed. As I understand it, a world-wide flood would have caused a cataclysmic upheaval of the pre-flood landscape, including, perhaps, pushing up the rocks etc. to make the post-flood mountains higher than before the flood.

I don't think persons are considering the fact that the weight of the water would have added to the weight of the mountains.
Once that weight was released, what would that mean?
It would mean that rapid uplift was on the cards.

Also, the continental drift at play caused uplift as well.
Previous studies have shown that continental changes in key areas (e.g., formation of the Isthmus of Panama and uplift of the Tibetan plateau) may affect the ocean general circulation and tropical rainfall.
Many factors would have played a role.

Assuming a slow gradual process, has misled many, causing them to have to review those assumptions.

 

[CoreyD]

I did, multiple times

Oh? Okay.
See you another time... perhaps.

 

[Yttrium]

Which is an elevation of 2,051 feet in 1 million years.

0.002 feet per year? That seems a bit fast for something that size, but I don't know that it's geologically unworkable.

Mount Everest is 29,032 feet tall.
Since I am not very good at Math, you can work it out.
If Mount Everest was 15,000 feet high 6,000 years ago, could it not have risen to its current height, if the conditions were not as assumed - a consistent, slow gradual process?

You want it to rise 14,000 feet in 6,000 years? That's more than two feet per year. For something as massive as Everest, that's not a gradual process. There would be frequent huge earthquakes as the tectonic plates smashed into each other.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Not now perhaps, but the bible talks about something it refers to as "the fountains of the great deep" which were broken up. This would surely have released a lot of energy. We know the sort of damage a merely local flood can do, carrying cars, bridges, and much more in their wake, and a world-wide flood would do so much more.

Yes, but to do something like push up a mountain that is now 8,849 metres (29,032 feet) in the span of either several thousand years or 40 days and 40 nights, would be a catastrophic release of energy that would not create the mountains as we know it.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

So you're saying the Ark should have gone straight to the tallest mountain on earth and run aground?

Not what I'm saying at all. Considering what I said was "I don't really think that's how probability works... but I'll be honest, I do not really care either way."
And since I do not believe that a belief in a literal Noahic flood is necessary for being a Christian, I consider this a moot point to argue about.

 

[AV1611VET]

And since I do not believe that a belief in a literal Noahic flood is necessary for being a Christian, I consider this a moot point to argue about.

And I was willing to set miracles aside to talk to you about it, and you still don't want to talk about it.

Okay ... let me ask you this:

A drone flies randomly over the face of the earth at a height of 29,000 feet, starting from New Jersey, and flying 10 mph.

Mount Everest is 29,032 feet high.

What are the chances that that drone will crash into Mount Everest within a year's time?