pi=3.0 (according to the bible), page 2
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 4 times


reply posted on 17-6-2007 @ 01:11 PM by undo
Originally posted by Amenti


what about the "remez", (the hebrew notation to hint of something deeper?) the clue to treat the word as a mathematical formula? are you so sure that this is all just a silly coincedence from those sill Hebrews who built the monument of sacred geometry (the temple)

to say the bible was simply in error here is at the very least a matter "one side of the story" and is contested by very intelligent Jews and Christians alike



They threw ancient history away, a long time ago. According to the originators, Grecians couldn't write, after that, it was all down hill from there. Of course, it was proven that the Greeks could write but it was too late to back track, so today, we have to sit quietly, like good little historians, and watch while the ancient texts prove themselves, archaeologically and about a hundred other ways, and not mention a peep about it (or we're backwards idiots that believe in polygamy and so forth). And of course, there's similar amazing examples in other ancient texts but we can't give them credit either because they believed in gods in flying machines (Mahabharata) and the Eye of Ra flying around, seeking out people through solid rock (Legend of the Destruction of Mankind), and guards with glowing eyes that shot out death rays (Epic of Gilgamesh), and floating, hovering temples that roared, glowed, and had doors that "snatch" a man (Enki and the World Order), and so on.

Into the garbage it all goes! Cause well, the ancient people were idiots, proof of that is they thought pi=3.0 (or maybe it's just the hebrews that were dumb but the rest of them were rocket scientists!! Shh, don't mention the fact the high priests had to wear linen (as directed) of a certain variety to keep from being electrocuted by the furniture in the Holy of Holies.

Sigh. And so, we return to the dark ages disguised as the enlightened times, in which, most of our ancient history is a joke for the really smart people.


reply posted on 18-7-2007 @ 05:06 PM by debunkerofsome
I was perusing the ATS site the other night and came across this thread about the Bible "getting pi wrong". Not normally being bothered to add to stupid issues like this it was only the even stupider arguments coming from the Bible`s "defenders" which forced me to sign up and contribute.
It makes me quite angry to see people on both sides twisting things to suit themselves - this fantasy about the numerology is the real piece de resistance.

A careful reading of the passage tells us that the diameter from brim to brim of the laver or sea was 10 cubits, a cubit being of course approx 1.5 feet. It also tells us that the brim was a handbreadth (about 5 or 6 hands to a cubit) thick and that the circumference was 30 cubits. It also tells us it was 5 cubits deep and could hold 2000 baths (1 bath roughly 6 gallons).

A brim measure of 30 cubits - lets say the line was placed either halfway across the brim as it went round or on the inner lip - using the known value of pi gives us a diameter equating exactly to 10 cubits less 2 hands (accurate to approx 1 inch which ain`t bad).
And if one then calculates the volume one finds that it equates to exactly the measure given - check it.

Therefore those who have "proved" God not to exist because the Bible got pi wrong, and those who have proved he exists by inventing reactionary fallacies are both, quite frankly, talking through their backsides. The measurements and equations are correct as they are written. All one has to do is actually read what is said and have a brain which is not filled with tosh.

Somebody already said this by the way but nobody listened.


reply posted on 23-7-2007 @ 03:14 PM by madnessinmysoul
Originally posted by theindependentjournal
As I said this lie was debunked LONG LONG AGO, but they keep trying to put out the same lies over and over, like opiotrix the so called bird dinosaur that was a proven hoax,


um... do you mean Archaeopteryx? it actually wasn't a hoax, wikipedia has a sourced entry on it


Beginning in 1985, a group including astronomer Fred Hoyle and physicist Lee Spetner published a series of papers claiming that the feathers on the Berlin and London specimens of Archaeopteryx were forged.[29][30][31][32] Their claims were repudiated by Alan J. Charig and others at the British Museum of Natural History.[33] Most of their evidence for a forgery was based on unfamiliarity with the processes of lithification; for example, they proposed that based on the difference in texture associated with the feathers, feather impressions were applied to a thin layer of cement,[30] without realizing that feathers themselves would have caused a textural difference.[33] They also expressed disbelief that slabs would split so smoothly, or that one half of a slab containing fossils would have good preservation, but not the counterslab.[31][29] These, though, are common properties of Solnhofen fossils because the dead animals would fall onto hardened surfaces which would form a natural plane for the future slabs to split along, leaving the bulk of the fossil on one side and little on the other.[33] They also misinterpreted the fossils, claiming that the tail was forged as one large feather,[30] when this is visibly not the case.[33] In addition, they claimed that the other specimens of Archaeopteryx known at the time did not have feathers,[30][29] which is untrue; the Maxberg and Eichstätt specimens have obvious feathers.[33] Finally, the motives they suggested for a forgery are not strong, and contradictory; one is that Richard Owen wanted to forge evidence in support of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, which is unlikely given Owen's views toward Darwin and his theory. The other is that Owen wanted to set a trap for Darwin, hoping the latter would support the fossils so Owen could discredit him with the forgery; this is unlikely because Owen himself wrote a detailed paper on the London specimen, so such an action would certainly backfire.[23]


en.wikipedia.org...


or the proven hoax


um.. this one has nothing attached to it, what proven hoax are you talking about? is it the recent fossil faerie hoax? i liked that one, it amused me.


or the embryos


i'm sorry, but embryos are quite real


, and the Hoax humans have Gills slits, LIES LIES LIES and all proven to be so.


um, i've never heard the humans have gill slits thing... unless you're talking about in the development of the fetus, that one is actually quite real

i think you should look into a little thing called science


But until the evolutionist find another lie for their religion to pass on they will use all the old ones already disprovedmany times over...


nobody is an "evolutionist"
it isn't a religion
and it contains no lies

show me one lie of modern evolutionary biology and i will believe you, show me one hoax that a reputable modern evolutionary biologist would not admit to and i will believe you.


reply posted on 6-3-2009 @ 11:09 AM by adventureaddict

show me one lie of modern evolutionary biology and i will believe you, show me one hoax that a reputable modern evolutionary biologist would not admit to and i will believe you.


I realize this thread is a couple years old, but you asked to be shown one lie of modern evolutionary biology, and one hoax that a reputable modern evolutionary biologist would not admit to. Maybe Richard Dawkins isn't a biologist, but he is a reputable evolutionist who has spent his life arguing against creationism. This youtube link shows that he will not admit there is no evidence of information ever being introduced into the genome.

www.youtube.com...

Let me explain the significance of this:
All the information required to form our bodies can be found in our DNA (the genome). Darwin had no knowledge of the presence of DNA in the cell. For the theory of evolution to be true, it would have to be based on the introduction of new information into an species' DNA. New species would have to naturally receive new information into their DNA in order to form, for example, a tail, or fingers. What is taught by natural selection is actually the opposite. As a very simplified example, consider dogs with different hair lengths. There are many breeds of dogs, yet all dogs are still dogs. Through natural selection, some dogs have long hair, some have short hair. Let's say a capital 'H' represents long hair and a lower case 'h' represents short hair (from studying genes in junior high, remember?). Now assume the very first male dog had 'Hh' genes and bred with the first female dog, also with 'Hh' genes. The 'HH' offspring survived farther away from the equator because their long hair kept them alive in the cold. Similarly, the 'hh' offspring survived better closer to the equator because their short hair kept them cool. This is a LOSS of information FROM the DNA, not an introduction into the DNA, as would have to be true to support the theory of evolution. Short hair dogs with only 'hh' genes will never evolve on their own to have long hair, because the information is no longer in their genes.

Many people think the theory of evolution is proven fact. A theory, by definition, is not a fact. Why do people think they must interpret the Bible to fits man's theories, instead of interpreting man's observations to fit the Bible? If you believe some of the Bible and allow yourself to believe in evolution, you might as well not believe the Bible at all. Take it or leave it, but don't compromise it. As far as pi=3, that has been sufficiently explained.
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>    ^^TOP^^



EVOLUTION - Did YOU Know?
  Posted 19 days ago with 24 member flags
"I was raised an atheist"- Professor František Vyskočil
  Posted 9 days ago with 6 member flags
The meaning or point of existence or life
  Posted 12 days ago with 2 member flags
Sand Castles and Science
  Posted 10 days ago with 2 member flags