GOD tells us PI= 3 !
Posted on: May 13, 2008 - 3:51pm
Offline
GOD tells us PI= 3 !
GOD tells us PI= 3 ! ( I kings 7:23-26) http://gospelofreason.wordpress.com/2007/06/13/god-said-pi-3-stand-by-your-beliefs-dammit/ This is hilarious I have never seen it like this
.Why ? Well lets see Christians make bible-cycles and drive them since wells are based on non bible science LOL. Is it even possible to make something remotely looking like a circle and having a “ pseudo Pi “ = 3 (I think its impossible )? LOL I will make a fortune on building new “ bible circles “ for Christians !
Warning I’m not a native English speaker.
http://downloads.khinsider.com/?u=281515 DDR and game sound track download
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Where are our math people?
What would a circle derived from Pi=3 look like?
Never Mind, trust to chance -- keep a sharp look out -- There is many a happy slave.
--Charles Darwin, on whether or not he ought to marry.
jeffrick
This argument shits me to tears. Read the section that's quoted again and answer this question: Is it, or is it not, a blueprint?
If you answered it is, then good friggin luck building a copy going from those plans, so much is missing it's not funny. If you think it is not, then explain to me why exact measurements are required to be given? Surely if it's not a blueprint then they can just round off numbers to give the reader and better and faster understanding of the size, scale, and design of the structure? Books, news articles, magazines etc do that all the time. If they're just giving a concept of size, then those innacurate measurements do not under any circumstance mean the bible says Pi = 3.
Please, for the love of FSM people, stop using this argument or giving it any time! It's pathetic.
Organised religion is the ultimate form of blasphemy.
ROFL...
I admit, I hadn't given this any thought because I've never used this as an argument. Personally, I think arguing biblical errancy with a theist is just retarded. Anyone who can't see that it's internally contradictory is not using reason and so cannot be reasoned with. If someone really doesn't know that the bible is errant, I'll show them, but that's the end of the discussion for me.
Never Mind, trust to chance -- keep a sharp look out -- There is many a happy slave.
--Charles Darwin, on whether or not he ought to marry.
Has it ever been a serious argument? I thought it was a kind of teasing joke, like the four-legged insects or the rabbit chewing cud. But then, I can't imagine taking the bible literally, so seriously arguing about it is nonsensical to me.
Will: no gyration without funkstification.
I also have a hard time knowing when to take bible talk seriously. Anytime someone says something about the bible, I chuckle aloud... just in case.
Never Mind, trust to chance -- keep a sharp look out -- There is many a happy slave.
--Charles Darwin, on whether or not he ought to marry.
http://www.1john57.com/1kings723.htm
I just love the fevered intensity that possesses the fundy when he thinks he has some scientific evidence that some part of Bible is true. He's like a parched man in the desert drinking at an oasis of truth.
Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown
Hi everyone,
This is my first post on RRS and I find myself in this thread first for no particular reason. I guess it is as good a place to start as any. So here it goes.
Jeffrick, you are close but not quite right technically. Mathematically, pi as we know it is a 2D Euclidean geometric concept (I'll get to non-Euclidean in a moment). Also, it is defined as the ratio of the area to the square of the radius. A radius (in 2D space) is a concept unique to circles. Any shape without corners that isn't a circle (e.g. an "egg" or ellipse) doesn't have a radius. Thus it is impossible to have a non-circle conceptualization of pi since only circles have radii. Now if you move into non-Euclidean spaces, it might be possible to have a "circle" where pi wasn't 3.14 but I'll leave it there for now.
When the facts change, I change my opinion. What do you do sir? - John Maynard Keynes
Yeah, another newbie? And not afraid to just jump right in. Thanx for the post and welcome !!
Not exactly a newbie though, where you been ?
I'm not sure I understand your comment about "not exactly a newbie". Do we know each other?
When the facts change, I change my opinion. What do you do sir? - John Maynard Keynes
It is not a big issue to me, because I believe the Bible to be less-than-perfect in many ways. And though pi = 3 is about 5% too small, it is not as good an approximation as was found by some of the Bible writers' contemporaries.
In particular, the author of the Ahmes Papyrus, a.k.a. the Rhind Papyrus of Egypt, who wrote around 1650 BCE, used an approximation for pi that was around 256/81, or about 3.16.
And Archimedes (287-212 BCE) discovered some infinite series that can be used to calculate pi, and he found that number to be between 223/71 and 22/7, or 3.1408 and 3.1429.
-
But it is a problem for the hypothesis of the absolute perfection of the Bible, which is what all too many Xian apologists claim. Though they often turn weaselly when challenged about this. It is a common sort of thing among irrationalists and crackpots -- to make very strong claims when advocating their positions, and to get weaselly about them and even deny them when challenged.
Hey, before anyone goes and makes fun of the christian's bicycles with egg-shaped wheels, consider the potential use as an exercise bike. It would be pretty hard to pedal, burn a lot of calories. God screwing up Pi just might have some benefit after all!
It simply wouldn't. It's an internally contradictory notion. Pi is the ratio between a circle's diameter and its circumference. Since a circle is defined as a geometric object such that each point on the circle is exactly the same distance from a certain point, by definition, only a circle can have a diameter, and by definition, the ratio of the diameter of the circle and the circumference must be pi. Only circles (or spheres) have diameters. It's simply meaningless to state that the ratio between the diameter and circumference could be anything other than pi, since if it is a different number, then whatever length ratio is being discussed isn't the diameter!
Thus we encounter books that use quantum mechanics as a justification for an array of metaphysical and spiritual beliefs written by people who would be unable to interpret a Feynman diagram or recognize, much less solve, a simple work function problem, articles smugly asserting that certain structures and organisms could not possibly have evolved, whose authors would be unable to draw a Punnett Square, brazen proclamations that evolution violates the laws of thermodynamics from people who would be unable to calculate enthalpy changes, use the combined gas law or solve a simple problem of dynamic equilibrium
-Me
Huh? The ratio between the diameter and the radius is always 2:1. A circle is defined as a geometric object such that every point on the circle is equidistant from a particular point. The diameter is defined as a straight line from one point on the circle to another point on the circle such that this line passes through that particular point from which all points on the circle are equidistant to, and the radius is defined as a straight line from a particular point on the circle to the particular point which all points on the circle are equidistant from. Pi is the ratio between the circumfrence and diameter, not the radius and diameter.
Thus we encounter books that use quantum mechanics as a justification for an array of metaphysical and spiritual beliefs written by people who would be unable to interpret a Feynman diagram or recognize, much less solve, a simple work function problem, articles smugly asserting that certain structures and organisms could not possibly have evolved, whose authors would be unable to draw a Punnett Square, brazen proclamations that evolution violates the laws of thermodynamics from people who would be unable to calculate enthalpy changes, use the combined gas law or solve a simple problem of dynamic equilibrium
-Me
Breathe, dude. It was an unintended mistake.
I had both definitions in my head (circumference to diameter vs. area to square of radius) and it came out all wrong because I was probably distracted or tired or both when I wrote it. I had abot 10 minutes to catch by bus. Sorry to waste your time having to go in depth on the wonders of circles. Note that I corrected it above so no one will get confused.
When the facts change, I change my opinion. What do you do sir? - John Maynard Keynes
Yeah, what deludedgod said...wait, what I said...or rather...oh nevermind.
When the facts change, I change my opinion. What do you do sir? - John Maynard Keynes
From our perspective it would look like a circle. Space would need to be curved quite a bit for that to happen though.
-----------------------------
Subvert the Dominant Paradigm