Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 2/5/07 07:27 AM, Togukawa wrote:

At 2/5/07 12:10 AM, Dre-Man wrote:

At 2/4/07 04:45 AM, Togukawa wrote: Nope, Dre is hopeless. He isn't going to realize that no radiometric dating says the earth is young, nor that natural selection can't occur with only 2 members of species, nor that Pi is infinite, nor that all the evidence he has posted for Noah's ark is just as much evidence for Deucalion's, and so on.

Okay, Pi is infinite. What does that prove again? Oh yes, your stupid bible quote. Do you even know what that quote was speaking about? Do you know what Hiram was building? Probably not, but I will say this. The bible was written by men and men do make mistakes. Does that mean that the bible isn't God's work? No.

Indeed, so it's not flawless, which was my point. You said there wasn't a single error in the Bible, and now finally you admit otherwise. So how do you know that the statement that the earth was created by god wasn't one of those mistakes? Or as a matter of fact ANY statement made in the Bible?

Here you just unknowingly trapped yourself. If pi is an infinite number as you claim, then how would it have been possible to calculate the circumference of the circle precisely? It would not have been possible, so "3" would have been a logical estimate of pi, because 3.14 rounded down is 3. Therefore this biblical quote was not flawed, in fact, it was accurate.

And about our little argument on the age of the earth, I don't believe that it's only 6,000 years old. And the bible doesn't say that it is either. I was simply stating that some radiometric dating results have pointed to a younger earth. If you really want me to, I'll search until I find a website that confirms my statement, but then you'll just say that the website I linked to wasn't credible, so why should I even bother?

Yes, I really want you to. Because I believe that you are the only person ignorant enough to claim that radiometric dating of all things would say the earth is as young as a couple of thousands years. Try looking for it, and see just how stupid you have made yourself look by that statement.

I don't believe that the earth is 6,000 years old, as a matter of fact, I think that it would be impossible for it to be that young. So why would I argue with you on that point?

And like I said with Noah's Ark, the world could have meant only the Fertile Crescent. And sybolism occurs very often in the Bible, which this could be another instance of.

Of course. The problem is that we don't know how to interpret the Bible. We no longer have the same cultural background as the people that wrote the Bible, so we no longer have the ability to interpret everything correctly. Furthermore we don't know what is symbolism or not. Hence my point that it is retarded to interpret the Bible literally and making claims on the physical world with it as source. Like claiming Noah's Ark is actually real, when there's no evidence of a boat, while there's a plethora of other older and similar myths. Considering that the Bible holds a lot of symbolism, and that there's no evidence whatsoever for this tale, the conclusion every reasonable person comes to is that the tale is an instance of symbolism. Especially if the symbolism is so easy to see: don't piss god off, but no matter how hard we screw up, he'll never kill us off completely.

The fact that there is an instance of similar myths simply suggests that the story is true. And simply because you don't have the mental capacity to indulge the symbolism the Bible offers does not mean that we do not have accurate interperetations of what the symbolism in the Bible means. Does that mean that our interperetations are exact? No. Does that mean that God didn't want our interperetations to be exact? Yes. If God didn't want to test the wisdom and peity of men he would not have told John to write Revelations as a riddle. Because of the fact that most can not understand the symbolism and riddles of the Bible, most like yourself, turn to atheism as the answer.

He might have violated his principles of "tell everyone to stfu, shut out all reasonable arguments, and fanatically hold to your belief" when he read the Bible and suddenly became instant christian, but this time around, he's doing a fine job of ignoring all arguments that go against his beliefs.

Reasonable arguments? "God doesn't exist because he isn't proven but evolution and the big bang are perfectly credible explanations for how the earth came to be." Yeah, really reasonable. And I never said I became an "instant Christian". It took me years to turn to Christianity.

I was referring to your statement of "If you're going to believe something, believe it, and don't cut people who believe something else any slack. Otherwise you'll always question yourself."

It's true. And you're a clear example of this statement. And for that I applaud you.

As for taking years to convert to christianity, you're certainly an early bird. I started really thinking about religion when I was around 16. You were 10-12? Do you think you have enough life experience at that age to make the decision you're never going to change anymore? If you're going to "believe it and don't and so on", I'd make the decision at a later age. Or at least be open to change your beliefs when you learn and experience more.

I'll never change my decision, and the fact that I was young when I did change my decision doesn't mean a thing.

Imaginary time, does that have anything to do with imaginary wave functions in quantum mechanics, or where does it come from?

What?

This is an intelligent question, it was aimed at an intelligent person. I.e. Ravariel in this case.

Okay then.

At 2/5/07 02:28 PM, Dre-Man wrote:

At 2/5/07 07:27 AM, Togukawa wrote:

Here you just unknowingly trapped yourself. If pi is an infinite number as you claim, then how would it have been possible to calculate the circumference of the circle precisely? It would not have been possible, so "3" would have been a logical estimate of pi, because 3.14 rounded down is 3. Therefore this biblical quote was not flawed, in fact, it was accurate.

Lol you just don't get it do you? Consider something very simple then. A triangle, you measure one angle, let's say it's 10 cm, measure another one, let's say it's 3. Perfectly measured, all done. Now we define "Xi" as the first one devided by the second one. 10/3 = 3.333..., infinite (but rational). If I now say "Xi equals 3", I'm completely WRONG. Because Xi is not a finite number, it's infinite. Same with Pi, but then with circumference and diameter.

I didn't think you would really be as stupid to claim Pi is finite after I explained its definition and why it is infinite. Einstein is a prophet, I'm sure he was referring to you when talking about the infinity of certain things.

Yes, I really want you to. Because I believe that you are the only person ignorant enough to claim that radiometric dating of all things would say the earth is as young as a couple of thousands years. Try looking for it, and see just how stupid you have made yourself look by that statement.

I don't believe that the earth is 6,000 years old, as a matter of fact, I think that it would be impossible for it to be that young. So why would I argue with you on that point?

Then stop making yourself look like a retard by claiming that radiometric dating would indicate that... You might find that people take you a little bit more seriously when you don't go around spouting things that are obviously completely wrong. Citing a source that actually refutes your claim as backing for it makes you look even worse.

The fact that there is an instance of similar myths simply suggests that the story is true.

Oh really? Dogon and greek mythology agree that the earth was created by godly fornication, well then, that must suggest that it is true. You have opened my eyes Dre! Furthermore it means the specific Dogon instance is true, for the same reason as the instance of Noah's Ark is true as opposed to Deucalion's. Say, what is that reason?

And simply because you don't have the mental capacity to indulge the symbolism the Bible offers does not mean that we do not have accurate interperetations of what the symbolism in the Bible means.

Who here lacks the mental capacity to understand that Noah's Ark as described probably did not happen as described?

Does that mean that our interperetations are exact? No. Does that mean that God didn't want our interperetations to be exact? Yes.

The problem with interpretation (not interperetation as you've written twice) is that the context is different, and that humans make mistakes. These same problems would still be there even if God wanted us to have exact interpretations and wrote down the Bible himself exactly as he wanted it.

If God didn't want to test the wisdom and peity of men he would not have told John to write Revelations as a riddle. Because of the fact that most can not understand the symbolism and riddles of the Bible, most like yourself, turn to atheism as the answer.

But being omniscient God knows that this is inevitable, so either he's an asshole for sending us to hell for something he knows is inevitable, or he doesn't care. And the problem here is not people not understanding the symbolism of the Bible, it's people claiming the Bible is literal as opposed to symbolic. That's where conflict with science comes from.

As for people turning to atheism, well, that's simply because it's most likely that we are unable to get accurate knowledge about a god. It's only logical that you don't believe in a specific god then. (atheism as in belief that there is no particular definite god). Now if there were only ONE revelation, then it would boil down to do accepting it or not. But as it stands there are many revelations, and even more adaptations of them. And there's no criterion to decide which revelation is more likely to be true...

I was referring to your statement of "If you're going to believe something, believe it, and don't cut people who believe something else any slack. Otherwise you'll always question yourself."

It's true. And you're a clear example of this statement. And for that I applaud you.

Haha, yes, that's why I'm discussing my beliefs with other people. Not because I want to improve my beliefs by comparing them with others, but because I feel the need to attack other beliefs. And furthermore Pi equals exactly three and there's no such thing as sarcasm.
But I have to admit, you're something different. I discuss with you because your antics amuse me. Claiming that radiometric dating says the earth is young, yet again stating Pi is finite, you're full of surprises.

As for taking years to convert to christianity, you're certainly an early bird. I started really thinking about religion when I was around 16. You were 10-12? Do you think you have enough life experience at that age to make the decision you're never going to change anymore? If you're going to "believe it and don't and so on", I'd make the decision at a later age. Or at least be open to change your beliefs when you learn and experience more.

I'll never change my decision, and the fact that I was young when I did change my decision doesn't mean a thing.

There's yet another difference between the two of us. While I see the need to reaffirm and adjust my beliefs in the light of new knowledge and experience, you want to have the beliefs you have now as when you are 70, effectively disregarding 60 years of life experience, and even consider this a good thing. It shows in your treatment of the Bible, you also think it's perfectly ok to disregard 2000 years of human experience and stick to what little was known that long ago. I suppose at least you are consistent this time.

It depends what your oppinion of perfect is...

If I was God and imperfect by your standard i would make a world that is perfect by my standards, which would be perfect.

If I was god and was not perfect i would not make a perfect world but a imperfect one, compaired to me that is.

So a perfect world is one made by a imperfect god because what is perfect would put a limite on my power. That would disprove people that say god ment for the world to be perfect.

But God made a imperfect world so we have motivation to be better, that is why evolution is here and god diddnt make every plant and animal the way it is today, it is part of the reasin why we are here, what drives science and thought, to be better people, hence humanism.

People that dont believe in god partly because he is 'imperfect' to them and that is why the world is imperfect, but i know better.

At 2/5/07 03:03 PM, Togukawa wrote: Lol you just don't get it do you? Consider something very simple then. A triangle, you measure one angle, let's say it's 10 cm, measure another one, let's say it's 3. Perfectly measured, all done. Now we define "Xi" as the first one devided by the second one. 10/3 = 3.333..., infinite (but rational). If I now say "Xi equals 3", I'm completely WRONG. Because Xi is not a finite number, it's infinite. Same with Pi, but then with circumference and diameter.

If you read that previous paragraph, i never claimed pi to be finite. Dumbass. I said, that if pi is an infinite number as you claim, it would have been impossible to exactly calculate the exact circumference of the circle that Hiram made. Therefore that bible quote was not incorrect, it was accurate for that matter. Pi, though it is an infinite number, rounded down is 3, therefore that was an accurate estimate for the circumference of the circle Hiram made.

And just a little fact for you, I never claimed pi to be finite in my previous posts, I asked you if it was finite and if it was simply the lack of knowledge that we currently have to know whether or not pi was finite. Therefore it was a question, not a claim.

I didn't think you would really be as stupid to claim Pi is finite after I explained its definition and why it is infinite. Einstein is a prophet, I'm sure he was referring to you when talking about the infinity of certain things.

I don't. I never did.

Then stop making yourself look like a retard by claiming that radiometric dating would indicate that... You might find that people take you a little bit more seriously when you don't go around spouting things that are obviously completely wrong. Citing a source that actually refutes your claim as backing for it makes you look even worse.

Great, keep going with it even though I've already dropped it, this keeps getting better and better.

Oh really? Dogon and greek mythology agree that the earth was created by godly fornication, well then, that must suggest that it is true. You have opened my eyes Dre! Furthermore it means the specific Dogon instance is true, for the same reason as the instance of Noah's Ark is true as opposed to Deucalion's. Say, what is that reason?

So I guess that there being a similar stories in almost every single culture of the planet makes the story LESS credible? I love the way you think.

Who here lacks the mental capacity to understand that Noah's Ark as described probably did not happen as described?

That statement is entirely stupid especially after I've stated that Noah's Ark is a symbolic story.

The problem with interpretation (not interperetation as you've written twice)

Oh yes Togukawa, let's pick out every minor spelling error in everyone's post to make them look stupid!

is that the context is different, and that humans make mistakes. These same problems would still be there even if God wanted us to have exact interpretations and wrote down the Bible himself exactly as he wanted it.

lol, not if God wrote through these humans, no they don't.

But being omniscient God knows that this is inevitable, so either he's an asshole for sending us to hell for something he knows is inevitable, or he doesn't care. And the problem here is not people not understanding the symbolism of the Bible, it's people claiming the Bible is literal as opposed to symbolic. That's where conflict with science comes from.

Yes, he knows that it is inevitable that some foolish men, like yourself, will never turn to his wisdom and guidance. That doesn't make him an ass hole, it just makes you an idiot. He presents himself to you every day, but you refuse to see him. He speaks to you every day, but you refuse to hear him. Does that make HIM the ass hole? I think not. Does that mean that HE doesn't care? No.

As for people turning to atheism, well, that's simply because it's most likely that we are unable to get accurate knowledge about a god. It's only logical that you don't believe in a specific god then. (atheism as in belief that there is no particular definite god). Now if there were only ONE revelation, then it would boil down to do accepting it or not. But as it stands there are many revelations, and even more adaptations of them. And there's no criterion to decide which revelation is more likely to be true...

And atheists are unable to get accurate knowledge about how they came to be, even without a God. Therefore you're no more logical than the average Buddhist, Christian, or Muslim. You think that you're "logical" because you base yourself off of science, but the only thing you base your "logic" off of is repeatedly failed theories and speculations.

It's true. And you're a clear example of this statement. And for that I applaud you.

Haha, yes, that's why I'm discussing my beliefs with other people. Not because I want to improve my beliefs by comparing them with others, but because I feel the need to attack other beliefs. And furthermore Pi equals exactly three and there's no such thing as sarcasm.
But I have to admit, you're something different. I discuss with you because your antics amuse me. Claiming that radiometric dating says the earth is young, yet again stating Pi is finite, you're full of surprises.

Once again, I never claimed pi to be finite. I asked. And no, the fact that you're still a straightforward atheist, rampaging on Christianity and religion, tells me that you're a clear example of my attitude and mindset. Therefore you're in the same boat as me when it comes to open-mindedness.

There's yet another difference between the two of us. While I see the need to reaffirm and adjust my beliefs in the light of new knowledge and experience, you want to have the beliefs you have now as when you are 70, effectively disregarding 60 years of life experience, and even consider this a good thing. It shows in your treatment of the Bible, you also think it's perfectly ok to disregard 2000 years of human experience and stick to what little was known that long ago. I suppose at least you are consistent this time.

Actually, I've changed my beliefs quite a few times over the years. I went from atheist to agnostic, agnostic to Christian. And over the period of time that I've been a Christian I've changed my views of the bible several times. And I plan to do so quite a few times more in the near future.

Does it even matter that pi goes on forever or not? Matter cannot be infinitly small so a circle cant. eventualy we would get to a point when atoms, wich is the smallest pice of matter are used to measure space, some people in this thread are too 'out of it' to be practicle.

At 2/5/07 04:08 PM, Dre-Man wrote:

Spot the logical inconsistancy

I'll never change my decision

vs

I've changed my views of the bible several times. And I plan to do so quite a few times more in the near future.

On another note...

The whole concept of parallel time confuses me - I'll accept that its possible, since I see no reason why you'd want to mislead me, but I'm afraid I don't ever think I'll understand it properly. Thanks for at least trying to put it in layman's terms for me.

At 2/5/07 06:11 PM, Goldensheep wrote:

At 2/5/07 04:08 PM, Dre-Man wrote:

Spot the logical inconsistancy

I'll never change my decision

vs

I've changed my views of the bible several times. And I plan to do so quite a few times more in the near future.

I've changed my views on THE BIBLE. I have not changed my views on RELIGION and will never do so, that does not involve logical inconsistancy.

On another note...

The whole concept of parallel time confuses me - I'll accept that its possible, since I see no reason why you'd want to mislead me, but I'm afraid I don't ever think I'll understand it properly. Thanks for at least trying to put it in layman's terms for me.

At 2/5/07 01:33 PM, Togukawa wrote: Ravariel, correct ay blatant mistakes please :)

Eh... pretty much got it in one.

At 2/5/07 02:28 PM, Dre-Man wrote: I don't believe that the earth is 6,000 years old, as a matter of fact, I think that it would be impossible for it to be that young. So why would I argue with you on that point?

Because that's not the point he's arguing. You claimed there was radiometric evidence of a young earth. So, where is it... put up or shut up.

At 2/5/07 07:39 PM, Ravariel wrote:

At 2/5/07 01:33 PM, Togukawa wrote: Ravariel, correct ay blatant mistakes please :)

Eh... pretty much got it in one.

At 2/5/07 02:28 PM, Dre-Man wrote: I don't believe that the earth is 6,000 years old, as a matter of fact, I think that it would be impossible for it to be that young. So why would I argue with you on that point?

Because that's not the point he's arguing. You claimed there was radiometric evidence of a young earth. So, where is it... put up or shut up.

I don't feel like wasting my time finding a source for a point that I don't even believe is true. I was simply stating that I've heard before that there are radiometric dating techniques which suggest a young Earth. And with that, I'm no longer discussing the age of the Earth.

I don't feel like wasting my time finding a source for a point that I don't even believe is true. I was simply stating that I've heard before that there are radiometric dating techniques which suggest a young Earth. And with that, I'm no longer discussing the age of the Earth.

Failure. I've heard before that there is evidence proving you are an idiot, but I'm not gonn waste my time finding the sources to prove it. As it stands, it's your job to find the sources and disprove them. Until then, you are and will be known, as an idiot. Thank you.

At 2/5/07 08:38 PM, Imperator wrote: Failure. I've heard before that there is evidence proving you are an idiot, but I'm not gonn waste my time finding the sources to prove it. As it stands, it's your job to find the sources and disprove them. Until then, you are and will be known, as an idiot. Thank you.

And everyone thinks that I'M the one starting the flame wars.

At 2/5/07 04:28 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote: eventualy we would get to a point when atoms, wich is the smallest pice of matter are used to measure space, some people in this thread are too 'out of it' to be practicle.

nope, we would get to subatomic praticles (newtrons, protons, Electrons.) after we could break peices up into something tha small, ew would freeze it. making it denser. finally, we would get into negative kelvin(based on when atoms stop moving(i thinknegative kelvin exists, if not 0 kelvin)) proving we could make something smaller, no matter how small we make it, while the originl thing still exists.

No, absolute 0 can never be reached, let alone negative, when something becomes close to absolute zero it becomes a bose-einstein condensate, scientists once did this and the thing sort of blew up and the particles were shot away and dissapeared, we dont know where they went

0 kelvin would require a perfect system to get to among other things. we do in fact have measurement smaller than an atom (in metric :) ) and there are numerous subatomic particles, we think we're approaching the smallest parts of the universe and the mechanics but i don't think we're anywhere near there yet.

At 2/5/07 09:31 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote: No, absolute 0 can never be reached, let alone negative, when something becomes close to absolute zero it becomes a bose-einstein condensate, scientists once did this and the thing sort of blew up and the particles were shot away and dissapeared, we dont know where they went

Aren't there some points of space where there is absolute zero? I mean, the universe is a vacuum so wouldn't there be some parts of it that have achieved absolute zero? Again I'm only asking a question, so please don't flame me for stating that absolute zero has been reached, because I've done nothing of the sort.

near 0 kelvin, such as 0.01*10^-14, or something else ridiculously close is possible. actual absolute zero is technically impossible.

At 2/5/07 04:08 PM, Dre-Man wrote:

At 2/5/07 03:03 PM, Togukawa wrote:

If you read that previous paragraph, i never claimed pi to be finite. Dumbass. I said, that if pi is an infinite number as you claim, it would have been impossible to exactly calculate the exact circumference of the circle that Hiram made. Therefore that bible quote was not incorrect, it was accurate for that matter. Pi, though it is an infinite number, rounded down is 3, therefore that was an accurate estimate for the circumference of the circle Hiram made.

Read my post again. Pi is the proportion between the two, it is not finite, it's infinite. The Bible says "the proportion is finite and 3". The proportion by definition is Pi. So the Bible IS incorrect. And you're wrong about not being able to exactly calculate the circumference. Try using your maths skills on the problem of the circumference of a circle with radius 1/Pi. Oh yay, it's a whole number.

And just a little fact for you, I never claimed pi to be finite in my previous posts, I asked you if it was finite and if it was simply the lack of knowledge that we currently have to know whether or not pi was finite. Therefore it was a question, not a claim.

Yes you did idiot. I said "Bible says Pi is some finite number. WRONG." Guess what your reply was?
"Actually it is, we just haven't found it yet, just because we don't have the technology to perfectly determine pi doesn't mean that it isn't finite".

So you're both a retard and a liar. Oh ain't not being able to edit posts a bitch.

I didn't think you would really be as stupid to claim Pi is finite after I explained its definition and why it is infinite. Einstein is a prophet, I'm sure he was referring to you when talking about the infinity of certain things.

I don't. I never did.

Wrong.

Then stop making yourself look like a retard by claiming that radiometric dating would indicate that... You might find that people take you a little bit more seriously when you don't go around spouting things that are obviously completely wrong. Citing a source that actually refutes your claim as backing for it makes you look even worse.

Great, keep going with it even though I've already dropped it, this keeps getting better and better.

Of course. Until you answer whether you are just retarded, or a lying hypocrite. Considering you claimed you never said Pi is finite, I'm think both.

Oh really? Dogon and greek mythology agree that the earth was created by godly fornication, well then, that must suggest that it is true. You have opened my eyes Dre! Furthermore it means the specific Dogon instance is true, for the same reason as the instance of Noah's Ark is true as opposed to Deucalion's. Say, what is that reason?

So I guess that there being a similar stories in almost every single culture of the planet makes the story LESS credible? I love the way you think.

Oh yes, because NOT more credible equals LESS credible. You're completely retarded. Ever heard of the word "unrelated"?

Who here lacks the mental capacity to understand that Noah's Ark as described probably did not happen as described?

That statement is entirely stupid especially after I've stated that Noah's Ark is a symbolic story.

Because you never claimed that there was evidence for Noah's Ark? Check your post history and eat some more foot.

Oh yes Togukawa, let's pick out every minor spelling error in everyone's post to make them look stupid!

A 'minor' spelling error you made thrice. I assumed you simply didn't know how the word is supposed to be spelled and pointed it out.

Yes, he knows that it is inevitable that some foolish men, like yourself, will never turn to his wisdom and guidance. That doesn't make him an ass hole, it just makes you an idiot. He presents himself to you every day, but you refuse to see him. He speaks to you every day, but you refuse to hear him. Does that make HIM the ass hole? I think not. Does that mean that HE doesn't care? No.

Now if he made a bush burn without actually burning, or made a sheepskin wet on a dry night, now then I'd be convinced.

And atheists are unable to get accurate knowledge about how they came to be, even without a God. Therefore you're no more logical than the average Buddhist, Christian, or Muslim. You think that you're "logical" because you base yourself off of science, but the only thing you base your "logic" off of is repeatedly failed theories and speculations.

At least atheists aknowledge that they don't have a clue about how they came to be, instead of inventing a god to explain it. We didn't need it for lightning in the end, and we don't need it for creation now. There are good arguments for a god, but that is not one of them.

Once again, I never claimed pi to be finite. I asked.

Liar liar, retard on fire?

Actually, I've changed my beliefs quite a few times over the years. I went from atheist to agnostic, agnostic to Christian. And over the period of time that I've been a Christian I've changed my views of the bible several times. And I plan to do so quite a few times more in the near future.

You plan to change your beliefs? That makes your earlier statement about "stick with your beliefs and don't change them and so on" yet another big steaming pile of the usual Dre excrements?

At 2/5/07 10:30 PM, Togukawa wrote:

At 2/5/07 04:08 PM, Dre-Man wrote:

At 2/5/07 03:03 PM, Togukawa wrote:

If you read that previous paragraph, i never claimed pi to be finite. Dumbass. I said, that if pi is an infinite number as you claim, it would have been impossible to exactly calculate the exact circumference of the circle that Hiram made. Therefore that bible quote was not incorrect, it was accurate for that matter. Pi, though it is an infinite number, rounded down is 3, therefore that was an accurate estimate for the circumference of the circle Hiram made.

Read my post again. Pi is the proportion between the two, it is not finite, it's infinite. The Bible says "the proportion is finite and 3". The proportion by definition is Pi. So the Bible IS incorrect. And you're wrong about not being able to exactly calculate the circumference. Try using your maths skills on the problem of the circumference of a circle with radius 1/Pi. Oh yay, it's a whole number.

And just a little fact for you, I never claimed pi to be finite in my previous posts, I asked you if it was finite and if it was simply the lack of knowledge that we currently have to know whether or not pi was finite. Therefore it was a question, not a claim.

Yes you did idiot. I said "Bible says Pi is some finite number. WRONG." Guess what your reply was?
"Actually it is, we just haven't found it yet, just because we don't have the technology to perfectly determine pi doesn't mean that it isn't finite".

So you're both a retard and a liar. Oh ain't not being able to edit posts a bitch.

Okay, so maybe I claimed that pi is finite. And that proves what, that I was wrong in that particular isntance? Sure. I'll give you that one. Does it prove that the bible quote was bull? No. Why? Because the bible quote could not have possibly provided an exact circumference of the circle if pi is infinite, 3 is an estimate of pi, thus the bible quote was correct and your argument went down the toilet anyway. Now who's sucking his own toes?

I didn't think you would really be as stupid to claim Pi is finite after I explained its definition and why it is infinite. Einstein is a prophet, I'm sure he was referring to you when talking about the infinity of certain things.

I don't. I never did.

Wrong.

Fine, you got me. For once.

Then stop making yourself look like a retard by claiming that radiometric dating would indicate that... You might find that people take you a little bit more seriously when you don't go around spouting things that are obviously completely wrong. Citing a source that actually refutes your claim as backing for it makes you look even worse.

Great, keep going with it even though I've already dropped it, this keeps getting better and better.

Of course. Until you answer whether you are just retarded, or a lying hypocrite. Considering you claimed you never said Pi is finite, I'm think both.

More and more insults, anything else?

Oh really? Dogon and greek mythology agree that the earth was created by godly fornication, well then, that must suggest that it is true. You have opened my eyes Dre! Furthermore it means the specific Dogon instance is true, for the same reason as the instance of Noah's Ark is true as opposed to Deucalion's. Say, what is that reason?

So I guess that there being a similar stories in almost every single culture of the planet makes the story LESS credible? I love the way you think.

Oh yes, because NOT more credible equals LESS credible. You're completely retarded. Ever heard of the word "unrelated"?

Actually, they are very related to each other in many aspects. The fact that there are thousands of other versions of the tale of Noah's Ark around the world is evidence that it DID happen, not evidence that it did not.

Who here lacks the mental capacity to understand that Noah's Ark as described probably did not happen as described?

That statement is entirely stupid especially after I've stated that Noah's Ark is a symbolic story.

Because you never claimed that there was evidence for Noah's Ark? Check your post history and eat some more foot.

There is evidence of Noah's Ark, as many sources clearly suggest. And my foot's still on the ground, buddy. And I ain't suckin' on it until you can actually bring something edible to the table.

Oh yes Togukawa, let's pick out every minor spelling error in everyone's post to make them look stupid!

A 'minor' spelling error you made thrice. I assumed you simply didn't know how the word is supposed to be spelled and pointed it out.

Insults, insults, will it never end?

Yes, he knows that it is inevitable that some foolish men, like yourself, will never turn to his wisdom and guidance. That doesn't make him an ass hole, it just makes you an idiot. He presents himself to you every day, but you refuse to see him. He speaks to you every day, but you refuse to hear him. Does that make HIM the ass hole? I think not. Does that mean that HE doesn't care? No.

Now if he made a bush burn without actually burning, or made a sheepskin wet on a dry night, now then I'd be convinced.

The only thing burning that's going to prove God's existance to you is your own skin when it's melting in hell.

And atheists are unable to get accurate knowledge about how they came to be, even without a God. Therefore you're no more logical than the average Buddhist, Christian, or Muslim. You think that you're "logical" because you base yourself off of science, but the only thing you base your "logic" off of is repeatedly failed theories and speculations.

At least atheists aknowledge that they don't have a clue about how they came to be, instead of inventing a god to explain it. We didn't need it for lightning in the end, and we don't need it for creation now. There are good arguments for a god, but that is not one of them.

Inventing? HA! Atheists invented dumbass theories YEARS ago to help them explain how their sorry asses came to be, and they STILL haven't been proven? And I'M inventing? You are HILARIOUS! The new Dane Cook right here ladies and gentleman, a true comedian.

Once again, I never claimed pi to be finite. I asked.

Liar liar, retard on fire?

Insults...

Actually, I've changed my beliefs quite a few times over the years. I went from atheist to agnostic, agnostic to Christian. And over the period of time that I've been a Christian I've changed my views of the bible several times. And I plan to do so quite a few times more in the near future.

You plan to change your beliefs? That makes your earlier statement about "stick with your beliefs and don't change them and so on" yet another big steaming pile of the usual Dre excrements?

Changing one's interpretation of the Bible isn't the same thing as saying "Oh, but Buddhism is a perfectly correct religion too!" when you should just simply stick with your own religion.

At 2/5/07 11:13 PM, Dre-Man wrote:

At 2/5/07 10:30 PM, Togukawa wrote:

Okay, so maybe I claimed that pi is finite. And that proves what, that I was wrong in that particular isntance?

Claiming Pi is finite makes you a retard, repeatedly claiming that you didn't claim Pi was finite makes you a lying retard. And those aren't even insults. My cousin of 10 years old knows that Pi is infinite...

Sure. I'll give you that one. Does it prove that the bible quote was bull? No. Why? Because the bible quote could not have possibly provided an exact circumference of the circle if pi is infinite, 3 is an estimate of pi, thus the bible quote was correct and your argument went down the toilet anyway. Now who's sucking his own toes?

Calculate the circumference of a circle with radius equal to 1/Pi. Ohnoes, go eat some more foot. Rounded down Pi is 3, but did the Bible say that Pi, rounded down is 3? No, the Bible says Pi is EXACTLY 3, completely wrong. Radius and circumference are linked through Pi, it's only possible to state one of the two as a finite number, the other is irrational. Assigning a finite number to both radius and circumference is mathematically unsound, and that's exactly what the Bible did.

Fine, you got me. For once.

Then stop making yourself look like a retard by claiming that radiometric dating would indicate that... You might find that people take you a little bit more seriously when you don't go around spouting things that are obviously completely wrong. Citing a source that actually refutes your claim as backing for it makes you look even worse.

:[...]

More and more insults, anything else?

I got you for twice now. Lying and spouting bullshit. Tell me, why should anyone take you seriously anymore? Age is no criterion, but if you claim making idiotic claims and then lie about them on an internet forum for crying out loud...

Oh really? Dogon and greek mythology agree that the earth was created by godly fornication, well then, that must suggest that it is true. You have opened my eyes Dre! Furthermore it means the specific Dogon instance is true, for the same reason as the instance of Noah's Ark is true as opposed to Deucalion's. Say, what is that reason?

So I guess that there being a similar stories in almost every single culture of the planet makes the story LESS credible? I love the way you think.

Oh yes, because NOT more credible equals LESS credible. You're completely retarded. Ever heard of the word "unrelated"?

Actually, they are very related to each other in many aspects. The fact that there are thousands of other versions of the tale of Noah's Ark around the world is evidence that it DID happen, not evidence that it did not.

So why is Noah's Ark correct and Deucalion's isn't? And how are the amount of similar stories and the correctness of a single instance related? Go ahead, start naming those "many aspects".

There is evidence of Noah's Ark, as many sources clearly suggest. And my foot's still on the ground, buddy. And I ain't suckin' on it until you can actually bring something edible to the table.

So start giving some sources. Sources that are evidence of NOAH'S Ark, not just worldwide flood and Viking/Norse/... Arks. I'll start off: the Bible. Your turn now.

A 'minor' spelling error you made thrice. I assumed you simply didn't know how the word is supposed to be spelled and pointed it out.

Insults, insults, will it never end?

Insults? Where are the insults in that sentence?

Now if he made a bush burn without actually burning, or made a sheepskin wet on a dry night, now then I'd be convinced.

The only thing burning that's going to prove God's existance to you is your own skin when it's melting in hell.

Ah it took a while, but finally the fire and brimstone argument again. So, if you know that that's the only thing that will prove God for me, then of course God knows this as well. So why doesn't he take away my free will in order to save me from eternal hell? Or send an angel or something? Does he simply not care? Please, grant me some insight into God's mind. For God's information, I'd rather have no free will than burn for eternity. Save me God!! Oh and save me Allah! Have pity on me Hades!! Rescue me Buddha! Who do I have to believe in to avoid hell here?!

At least atheists aknowledge that they don't have a clue about how they came to be, instead of inventing a god to explain it. We didn't need it for lightning in the end, and we don't need it for creation now. There are good arguments for a god, but that is not one of them.

Inventing? HA! Atheists invented dumbass theories YEARS ago to help them explain how their sorry asses came to be, and they STILL haven't been proven? And I'M inventing? You are HILARIOUS! The new Dane Cook right here ladies and gentleman, a true comedian.

You're not inventing, you're blindly following what others have invented for you. I wouldn't give you any credit for inventing anything. And since when has God been proven? Both theories are unproven, since proof is fundamentally impossible in both cases, but at least scientific theories are supported by evidence, as opposed to creationist ""theories"".

Actually, I've changed my beliefs quite a few times over the years. I went from atheist to agnostic, agnostic to Christian. And over the period of time that I've been a Christian I've changed my views of the bible several times. And I plan to do so quite a few times more in the near future.

You plan to change your beliefs? That makes your earlier statement about "stick with your beliefs and don't change them and so on" yet another big steaming pile of the usual Dre excrements?

Changing one's interpretation of the Bible isn't the same thing as saying "Oh, but Buddhism is a perfectly correct religion too!" when you should just simply stick with your own religion.

You've, based on thorough and excessive research into the nature of Buddhism established that christianity is the better religion, even though you haven't arrived at the final interpretation of the Bible. All that at 12 years old. I applaud you Dre.

At 2/6/07 08:48 AM, Togukawa wrote:

At 2/5/07 11:13 PM, Dre-Man wrote:

At 2/5/07 10:30 PM, Togukawa wrote:

Claiming Pi is finite makes you a retard, repeatedly claiming that you didn't claim Pi was finite makes you a lying retard. And those aren't even insults. My cousin of 10 years old knows that Pi is infinite...

How long are you going to keep going with this? I ADMITTED that I was wrong, so just drop it!

Calculate the circumference of a circle with radius equal to 1/Pi. Ohnoes, go eat some more foot. Rounded down Pi is 3, but did the Bible say that Pi, rounded down is 3? No, the Bible says Pi is EXACTLY 3, completely wrong. Radius and circumference are linked through Pi, it's only possible to state one of the two as a finite number, the other is irrational. Assigning a finite number to both radius and circumference is mathematically unsound, and that's exactly what the Bible did.

Why don't you do me a favor and post the bible quote exactly so that everyone can see it? If I recall correctly, the bible never even mentions the word pi, no, the only thing it does is say that the diameter and circumference of a circle were 10, and 30. Thereby suggesting that pi is 3, but in truth, only an accurate estimate of the actual circumference of the circle. An accurate estimate of Pi is 3.14, round that down, and it's 3. That does not mean that the bible claimed pi to be finite, and until you can find me a quote that does, drop it.

Then stop making yourself look like a retard by claiming that radiometric dating would indicate that... You might find that people take you a little bit more seriously when you don't go around spouting things that are obviously completely wrong. Citing a source that actually refutes your claim as backing for it makes you look even worse.

There's your fucking website.

I got you for twice now. Lying and spouting bullshit. Tell me, why should anyone take you seriously anymore? Age is no criterion, but if you claim making idiotic claims and then lie about them on an internet forum for crying out loud...

Why should anyone take me seriously? Because I actually admit when I'm wrong. I admitted to be wrong when you proved that pi was finite, but you still do not admit to be wrong when I've proved that you have nothing to even slightly discredit the bible.

So why is Noah's Ark correct and Deucalion's isn't? And how are the amount of similar stories and the correctness of a single instance related? Go ahead, start naming those "many aspects".

I didn't mean that it made the exact tale of "Noah's Ark" more credible, I said that it made the general story of the instance more credible, whether it be Noah's Ark or Deucalion's. One could also jump forward and say that it's evidence that we are all descendants of Noah and his sons, but I don't feel like going there right now.

So start giving some sources. Sources that are evidence of NOAH'S Ark, not just worldwide flood and Viking/Norse/... Arks. I'll start off: the Bible. Your turn now.

Another website for the fucktard.

Now if he made a bush burn without actually burning, or made a sheepskin wet on a dry night, now then I'd be convinced.

Ah it took a while, but finally the fire and brimstone argument again. So, if you know that that's the only thing that will prove God for me, then of course God knows this as well. So why doesn't he take away my free will in order to save me from eternal hell? Or send an angel or something? Does he simply not care? Please, grant me some insight into God's mind. For God's information, I'd rather have no free will than burn for eternity. Save me God!! Oh and save me Allah! Have pity on me Hades!! Rescue me Buddha! Who do I have to believe in to avoid hell here?!

As I said, you refuse to see God, or hear him. He gives you free will as a test of your faith and wisdom, but you have none, and thus will burn.

You're not inventing, you're blindly following what others have invented for you. I wouldn't give you any credit for inventing anything. And since when has God been proven? Both theories are unproven, since proof is fundamentally impossible in both cases, but at least scientific theories are supported by evidence, as opposed to creationist ""theories"".

And you're not blindly following evolution, and the big bang, who were theorized by others before you? O ho, yes you are my friend. And there is much evidence to support creationist theories, which you continue to play your "lalala, I'm not listening" game with.

You've, based on thorough and excessive research into the nature of Buddhism established that christianity is the better religion, even though you haven't arrived at the final interpretation of the Bible. All that at 12 years old. I applaud you Dre.

Yet you promised to stop mentioning age, how lovely. Now who's lying?

At 2/6/07 11:12 AM, Dre-Man wrote:

At 2/6/07 08:48 AM, Togukawa wrote:

Why don't you do me a favor and post the bible quote exactly so that everyone can see it? If I recall correctly, the bible never even mentions the word pi, no, the only thing it does is say that the diameter and circumference of a circle were 10, and 30. Thereby suggesting that pi is 3, but in truth, only an accurate estimate of the actual circumference of the circle. An accurate estimate of Pi is 3.14, round that down, and it's 3. That does not mean that the bible claimed pi to be finite, and until you can find me a quote that does, drop it.

Of course the Bible doesn't mention Pi, Pi as a mathematical symbol is only around 300 years old. But from what the Bible describes it follows that what we now know as Pi should be 3, and in any case finite. And yes the Bible claims that Pi is finite. And it's not about the circumference of the circle, my FSM, you're just too retarded to argue with. You'll never get it. That you can't understand evolution theory, that I can understand, but seriously, this really isn't that hard a concept...

There's your fucking website.

This at least says that radiometric dating isn't a reliable dating system and that we should use the Bible instead. You're making progress, but this still doesn't claim that radiometric dating itself is a source for a young earth.

Why should anyone take me seriously? Because I actually admit when I'm wrong. I admitted to be wrong when you proved that pi was finite, but you still do not admit to be wrong when I've proved that you have nothing to even slightly discredit the bible.

I proved that Pi was INfinite...

And of course I don't admit being wrong, since I'm right. The Bible gives two numbers, of which the proportion by definition is Pi, an irrational infinite number. However, if we divide the two numbers in the Bible, it's not even a rational infinite number, but a whole number. Completely wrong. Writing down both circumference and radius of a circle in real numbers can't be done. Doing so, as the Bible did, is mathematically wrong.

I didn't mean that it made the exact tale of "Noah's Ark" more credible, I said that it made the general story of the instance more credible, whether it be Noah's Ark or Deucalion's. One could also jump forward and say that it's evidence that we are all descendants of Noah and his sons, but I don't feel like going there right now.

So, because of both Greek, Roman and Dogon faith agree that the earth was made by divine fornication, that means this general story is more credible?

So start giving some sources. Sources that are evidence of NOAH'S Ark, not just worldwide flood and Viking/Norse/... Arks. I'll start off: the Bible. Your turn now.

Another website for the fucktard.

Yes, so there might be a huge boat. Still no evidence that it's Noah's, or that it held all the animals that populate the world. But that should be easy to check, yay for DNA.

As I said, you refuse to see God, or hear him. He gives you free will as a test of your faith and wisdom, but you have none, and thus will burn.

At least I'm with the majority, we can all burn together. And why does God need to test my faith and wisdom? He supposedly created me for crying out loud. His little test results in more than half of humanity burning in eternity. Pretty lousy test if you ask me.

And you're not blindly following evolution, and the big bang, who were theorized by others before you? O ho, yes you are my friend.

I'm not the one claiming that I invented something... As for blindly following, my belief in evolution and big bang is not dogmatic, as opposed to your belief in the Bible.

And there is much evidence to support creationist theories, which you continue to play your "lalala, I'm not listening" game with.

Much evidence? All the evidence they have is "science is wrong, the only alternative to science is christian creation, hence the world must be created". The first statement is debatable, and the second is blatantly wrong.

You've, based on thorough and excessive research into the nature of Buddhism established that christianity is the better religion, even though you haven't arrived at the final interpretation of the Bible. All that at 12 years old. I applaud you Dre.

Yet you promised to stop mentioning age, how lovely. Now who's lying?

I promised to stop mentioning age? Did I? Please refresh my memory then. In any case the age argument is valid here. Unless you wish to claim that it is perfectly possible to completely understand a religion in a matter of months? You haven't been alive very long, you've spent even less time consciously thinking about religion, and hence can't make an informed decision yet about which religion you wish to follow for the rest of your life. If we assume you have been thinking about religion since you were 8, you have spent 6 years thinking about religion. There's probably still more than 10 times that coming. You've only got a fraction of the life experience you will attain eventually, and hence it's foolish to cling to what little knowledge you had in that first fraction for the rest of your life.

At 2/6/07 12:34 PM, Togukawa wrote:

At 2/6/07 11:12 AM, Dre-Man wrote:

At 2/6/07 08:48 AM, Togukawa wrote:

Why don't you do me a favor and post the bible quote exactly so that everyone can see it? If I recall correctly, the bible never even mentions the word pi, no, the only thing it does is say that the diameter and circumference of a circle were 10, and 30. Thereby suggesting that pi is 3, but in truth, only an accurate estimate of the actual circumference of the circle. An accurate estimate of Pi is 3.14, round that down, and it's 3. That does not mean that the bible claimed pi to be finite, and until you can find me a quote that does, drop it.

Of course the Bible doesn't mention Pi, Pi as a mathematical symbol is only around 300 years old. But from what the Bible describes it follows that what we now know as Pi should be 3, and in any case finite. And yes the Bible claims that Pi is finite. And it's not about the circumference of the circle, my FSM, you're just too retarded to argue with. You'll never get it. That you can't understand evolution theory, that I can understand, but seriously, this really isn't that hard a concept...

You still haven't given everyone that bible quote? Do you know why? Because in no way does it state that pi is a finite number. It says that the circle had a diamter of 10, and a circumference of 30, divide that and you get three. Three is a whole number, but the bible did not state that pi was a whole number, or that pi was three for that matter. 3.14 is the usual number that is used for pi, what is is 3.14 rounded down equal? THREE! THREE! THREE! THREE! THREE! THREE! THREE! THREE! THREE! THREE! THREE! THREE! THREE! THREE! THREE!

Now, do I have to pound it into your skull any more to get you to realise that it would have been impossible for anyone to exactly calculate pi? As you said, pi is infinite, so the only logical thing the man who wrote that section of the Bible could do, was to estimate what the circumference of the circle was, which he did. Does that mean that he claimed that pi was 3, or that it was a whole number? NO!

There's your fucking website.

This at least says that radiometric dating isn't a reliable dating system and that we should use the Bible instead. You're making progress, but this still doesn't claim that radiometric dating itself is a source for a young earth.

Oh fuck, the great Togukawa is still not pleased... A link, written BY an atheist scientist, who believes that the Earth is old.

Why should anyone take me seriously? Because I actually admit when I'm wrong. I admitted to be wrong when you proved that pi was finite, but you still do not admit to be wrong when I've proved that you have nothing to even slightly discredit the bible.

I proved that Pi was INfinite...

Sure you did, but that doesn't discredit the bible, so what's your point?

And of course I don't admit being wrong, since I'm right. The Bible gives two numbers, of which the proportion by definition is Pi, an irrational infinite number. However, if we divide the two numbers in the Bible, it's not even a rational infinite number, but a whole number. Completely wrong. Writing down both circumference and radius of a circle in real numbers can't be done. Doing so, as the Bible did, is mathematically wrong.

Once again, so that hopefully (probably less than a one in a million chance) I can get it through your skull. Three, the whole number that was used in the Bible was an estimate of the infinite number of pi. It would have been impossible to exactly calculate the circumference of the circle if pi is infinite, and thus an estimate was used. THREE!

I didn't mean that it made the exact tale of "Noah's Ark" more credible, I said that it made the general story of the instance more credible, whether it be Noah's Ark or Deucalion's. One could also jump forward and say that it's evidence that we are all descendants of Noah and his sons, but I don't feel like going there right now.

So, because of both Greek, Roman and Dogon faith agree that the earth was made by divine fornication, that means this general story is more credible?

So start giving some sources. Sources that are evidence of NOAH'S Ark, not just worldwide flood and Viking/Norse/... Arks. I'll start off: the Bible. Your turn now.

Another website for the fucktard.

Yes, so there might be a huge boat. Still no evidence that it's Noah's, or that it held all the animals that populate the world. But that should be easy to check, yay for DNA.

Actually, if you read the website correctly, which I'm sure you did nothing but barely glance at. One of the ATHEISTS that was working with the scientist who uncovered this evidence, traced DNA back to the area which she found, and discovered that some of the oldest horses in the world came from that area. Yet more proof. Still not satisfied? Too bad. Because I've proven that there is evidence. So shut up about it.

As I said, you refuse to see God, or hear him. He gives you free will as a test of your faith and wisdom, but you have none, and thus will burn.

At least I'm with the majority, we can all burn together. And why does God need to test my faith and wisdom? He supposedly created me for crying out loud. His little test results in more than half of humanity burning in eternity. Pretty lousy test if you ask me.

Yeah sure, I guess you'll all have fun boiling together. You can chat while your balls melt off.

And you're not blindly following evolution, and the big bang, who were theorized by others before you? O ho, yes you are my friend.

I'm not the one claiming that I invented something... As for blindly following, my belief in evolution and big bang is not dogmatic, as opposed to your belief in the Bible.

Dogmatic? Do you actually believe that I do not question my beliefs from time to time? Ha!

And there is much evidence to support creationist theories, which you continue to play your "lalala, I'm not listening" game with.

Much evidence? All the evidence they have is "science is wrong, the only alternative to science is christian creation, hence the world must be created". The first statement is debatable, and the second is blatantly wrong.

They have scientific evidence of a flood, Noah's Ark, Jesus' existance, and the list just goes on and on. I just gave you evidence! But once more the "lalala, I'm not listening" game.

You've, based on thorough and excessive research into the nature of Buddhism established that christianity is the better religion, even though you haven't arrived at the final interpretation of the Bible. All that at 12 years old. I applaud you Dre.

Yet you promised to stop mentioning age, how lovely. Now who's lying?

I promised to stop mentioning age? Did I? Please refresh my memory then. In any case the age argument is valid here. Unless you wish to claim that it is perfectly possible to completely understand a religion in a matter of months? You haven't been alive very long, you've spent even less time consciously thinking about religion, and hence can't make an informed decision yet about which religion you wish to follow for the rest of your life. If we assume you have been thinking about religion since you were 8, you have spent 6 years thinking about religion. There's probably still more than 10 times that coming. You've only got a fraction of the life experience you will attain eventually, and hence it's foolish to cling to what little knowledge you had in that first fraction for the rest of your life.

I don't think that anyone on this forum has been alive for very long. Half of the people here are 18 and younger. And as for questioning why I believe, it's because I know God exists. How is that possible? Convert and find out.

At 2/6/07 12:51 PM, Dre-Man wrote:

At 2/6/07 12:34 PM, Togukawa wrote:

You still haven't given everyone that bible quote? Do you know why? Because in no way does it state that pi is a finite number.

Because anyone with half a mind can type in "pi three bible" and find a plethora of links. It's not like I give them more credit than I do you, wait, no, that's it after all.

It says that the circle had a diamter of 10, and a circumference of 30, divide that and you get three. Three is a whole number, but the bible did not state that pi was a whole number, or that pi was three for that matter. 3.14 is the usual number that is used for pi, what is is 3.14 rounded down equal? THREE! THREE! THREE! THREE! THREE! THREE! THREE! THREE! THREE! THREE! THREE! THREE! THREE! THREE! THREE!

Ooh, and what is circumference divided by diameter? To put it in mathematical terms: The Bible says A=3, A being circumference divided by diameter. We now know A=Pi=3.14159... Now for the obvious identity A=A, therefore 3=A=Pi=3.14159. By RAA the original hypothesis A=3 was wrong, QED. Yay for logic. And A=3 was the statement from the Bible, so the Bible is wrong.

Now, do I have to pound it into your skull any more to get you to realise that it would have been impossible for anyone to exactly calculate pi? As you said, pi is infinite, so the only logical thing the man who wrote that section of the Bible could do, was to estimate what the circumference of the circle was, which he did. Does that mean that he claimed that pi was 3, or that it was a whole number? NO!

No the only logical thing the man who wrote that section of the Bible could do was ONLY mention the circumference, then the radius is completely defined by Pi. Once the circumference is stated, it's impossible to represent the diameter with a finite number. By stating the two, he claimed that Pi was some value. YES! The guy who wrote the Bible attempted to do the impossible, and of course failed horribly. Hybris in a revelation, the irony.

Oh fuck, the great Togukawa is still not pleased... A link, written BY an atheist scientist, who believes that the Earth is old.

I'll accept that. Carbon dating can't be used to measure the age of the earth since it's halflife is too short, but apparently there ARE creationists that use the argument. Seems like stupidity is infinite after all. Good for you, you've finally found a link to back what you've been spouting without basis all this time. You're making progress.

Sure you did, but that doesn't discredit the bible, so what's your point?

No it doesn't 'discredit' the Bible, but it does mean there's an untruth in it.

Once again, so that hopefully (probably less than a one in a million chance) I can get it through your skull. Three, the whole number that was used in the Bible was an estimate of the infinite number of pi. It would have been impossible to exactly calculate the circumference of the circle if pi is infinite, and thus an estimate was used. THREE!

And where does the writer state it's an estimate? Oh wait, he doesn't. I could claim your body is composed 100% of water and still be right by your logic. It's impossible to accurately represent the percentage of water down to the molecule, so I'll use an estimate. You are completely composed of water! After all, 70% and something rounded up is 100% ONE HUNDRED! Why am I wasting my time talking to a bunch of water?

Another website for the fucktard.

Yes, so there might be a huge boat. Still no evidence that it's Noah's, or that it held all the animals that populate the world. But that should be easy to check, yay for DNA.

Actually, if you read the website correctly, which I'm sure you did nothing but barely glance at. One of the ATHEISTS that was working with the scientist who uncovered this evidence, traced DNA back to the area which she found, and discovered that some of the oldest horses in the world came from that area. Yet more proof. Still not satisfied? Too bad. Because I've proven that there is evidence. So shut up about it.

Why do you think I mentioned DNA? Only finding DNA of horses from a boat that contains the DNA of all lifeforms currently on earth just doesn't cut it. There should be shitloads of DNA of shitloads of different species.

At least I'm with the majority, we can all burn together. And why does God need to test my faith and wisdom? He supposedly created me for crying out loud. His little test results in more than half of humanity burning in eternity. Pretty lousy test if you ask me.

Yeah sure, I guess you'll all have fun boiling together. You can chat while your balls melt off.

I intend on leaving my balls behind in my grave. Though I suppose I could ask if I could take them along as a souvenir.

I'm not the one claiming that I invented something... As for blindly following, my belief in evolution and big bang is not dogmatic, as opposed to your belief in the Bible.

Dogmatic? Do you actually believe that I do not question my beliefs from time to time? Ha!

Your beliefs are founded on the Bible. You said that you change your interpretation of the Bible from time to time, but you don't question whether the Bible is really the word of God or not. That's a dogma, there's no evidence whatsoever. It's not even possible to have evidence of it for that matter.

They have scientific evidence of a flood, Noah's Ark, Jesus' existance, and the list just goes on and on. I just gave you evidence! But once more the "lalala, I'm not listening" game.

How are a flood, an ark and the existence of a sect leader any evidence that the earth was created by a god, around 6000 years ago? They may give credibility to the Bible as a whole, but they're in no way evidence that Genesis should be taken literally.

I don't think that anyone on this forum has been alive for very long. Half of the people here are 18 and younger. And as for questioning why I believe, it's because I know God exists. How is that possible? Convert and find out.

But do you see other members of the board proclaiming that they have established their beliefs and will never ever consider changing them?

It would appear that all other "science vs religion" themed topics or topics that turned into that theme have been deleted, leaving only this one. Hooray!

At 2/6/07 03:18 PM, Peter-II wrote: It would appear that all other "science vs religion" themed topics or topics that turned into that theme have been deleted, leaving only this one. Hooray!

Anybody want to guess WHY this topic was spared?

(besides the fact that it's to old for me to delete?)

Because all the redundant religion topics in this forum have the same theme; who is right, science or religion? Seeing as this is the only topic on the BBS right now to have the balls to admit what it is, this is the new "Official" Religion topic. Same rules apply to this as the Official Bush Topic; I catch you posting a religion topic outside of this and it's a three day vacation for you.

Togukawa, if pi is infinite as you claim, it would have been impossible for the man who wrote that section of the bible to calculate the exact circumference OR diameter of the circle in which Hiram made. And if it was possible, why don't you give me the EXACT, and I mean EXACT diameter of a circle if the circumference is 30? You can't can you? Because pi is infinite, like you said.

Discussion over, done, stupid, retarded, done.

Uh, just one thing. We have enough evidence to say that Jesus was a real person, the only thing in question was, is he the son of god? I belive it is scientifically impossible to have a flood of the entire earth unless the polar ice caps melted, and that boat musta been HELL BIG to hold the inscect species alone, never mind all other animals, birds and such. Plz no flaming, i just don't see how that works...

At 2/6/07 03:58 PM, Wills4545 wrote: Uh, just one thing. We have enough evidence to say that Jesus was a real person, the only thing in question was, is he the son of god?

No, of course not, he was just some loon who talked to much and had strange visions. A very tricky little bastard Jesus was, good thing most people are smart enough to not listen to him.

I belive it is scientifically impossible to have a flood of the entire earth unless the polar ice caps melted, and that boat musta been HELL BIG to hold the inscect species alone, never mind all other animals, birds and such.

We've found Noah's Ark, link.

Plz no flaming, i just don't see how that works...

It does, that's why there are thousands of versions of the same exact story all around the earth.

Pi cant be infinately small because the there is such a thing as a whole circle, if pi was infinately small no circle would be complete, also isnt the fact a perfact circle is imposible to have would make Pi an imposible thing, it would not be infinate because no circle is perfect. But i guess it would be infinate if there was a hypotheticle 'perfect circle'

You still haven't given everyone that bible quote? Do you know why? Because in no way does it state that pi is a finite number. It says that the circle had a diamter of 10, and a circumference of 30, divide that and you get three. Three is a whole number, but the bible did not state that pi was a whole number, or that pi was three for that matter. 3.14 is the usual number that is used for pi, what is is 3.14 rounded down equal? THREE! THREE! THREE! THREE! THREE! THREE! THREE! THREE! THREE! THREE! THREE! THREE! THREE! THREE! THREE!

WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG!
3.14 IS the rounded down number, from 3.1415962823420 etc.

Now, do I have to pound it into your skull any more to get you to realise that it would have been impossible for anyone to exactly calculate pi? As you said, pi is infinite, so the only logical thing the man who wrote that section of the Bible could do, was to estimate what the circumference of the circle was, which he did. Does that mean that he claimed that pi was 3, or that it was a whole number? NO!

ALSO WRONG! By the time of the Bible, there were people who had calculated Pi to be 3.14 or thereabouts. Of course, this is dependant on which part we are looking at, Old or New Testament.