Big Bang ushers in the heavens and the earth...?

No, what is amazing is the ridiculous contortions one must use to "interpret" scientific accuracy which is then use as confirmation of a creator.

This is called a circular reference and will give you an error every time you attempt it in a spreadsheet. Seems it ain't logical or mathematical.

Seems you forget quickly.

are you going to respond to the truly dumb math you offered up of 1 hour = 375,000,000 years?

 

FYI Einstien didn't disprove the law of conservation of mass.
The law remains relevant and in use today in chemistry and fluid dynamics for instance.

What you fail to realize is that the poster was merely describing what science is. It is merely a process to achieve an end result. It is not the end result itself.

 

Pi is not 3.

 

mathematics does not seem to be a strongpoint of bible science.

 

I was questioned what I meant by "fudging" a point. Mathematically 3 is not Pi, but Biblically, it's close enough to be an exact prediction.

 

Can't say I am surprised that some one that considers genesis to be scientifically correct wouldn't have a clue how different 3 is to 3.14etc.

Of course one could always return with:
Well, three thousand years ago they hadn't invented the decimal system, had any notion of fractions, nor even had an inkling of 0 so the prime 3 was the closest number god could make give them that they'd understand".

Always the square peg, the round hole and a vivid imagination.

 

Most who criticize the bible at least here in PF are have little or no formal eduction in the subject. Most do not know which biblical books are written in which style or even that there were different styles. Most, or many without using Google don't know who authored the books and how the books got included and which were rejected in the collection, and I am not speaking about the biblical canon. Most do not know of recent discoveries. On and on! What is most distressing when our beloved atheist members are confronted with emerging evidence that supports the bible they invariably make some kind of lame excuse and move on to another nit picking subject hopefully diverting attention. What they can not hide from is that science is and has been wrong many times in the past. That is a demonstrable fact. There were people who built their lives and careers based on the support of a science concept etc and lost everything when the concept was proved wrong.

Lastly (again) I know of no one that claims the bible was a science text book etc, certainly not the scholars~ ! So I suggest with all respect, instead of making vague disparaging comments about religions and the devout please become proactive! Start with reading some material that supports what we have been debating here and make sure its not over ten years old! The author Behe would be a good start, then move on to Koon and Craig then maybe read the bible or some philosophy on the subject.

reva

 

excerpt;

Yes lets fall back on this science fav of the past; 'Life began in a small warm pond, gradually over many millions, no lets make that 'gradual transitions' (remember that word kiddies) also, lets change the millions to billions or zillions of changes! In Part two we will touch on how we humans were made by 'intelligent Jeans er and selfish Genes !!!!' ~ Lol

Not so far in the future science of today will be a hot steaming pile of quaint myths ~ no thanks !

reva

 

well no actually that will not happen. You see ambiogenesis is a scientific hypothesis that so far has neither been contradicted by experimentation nor confirmed by such.

Second, this notion that science does not evolve as our technical abilities and knowledge increas is ridiculous. Thosemaking such an argument do not appreciate exactly what science is. It is simply a structured methodology of investigation.
Science does not create knowledge, it uncovers it.


As for steaming piles of quaint myths. I appreciate your sarcasm. You think the "science" of today that enables the internet will be a quaint myth? or the "science" of today that enables the creation of all kinds of effective medicines?

You must be familiar with the timeline of bible's creation. The new testament was created during jesus time, but didn't get written down until some 30 or 40 years later. The concept of broken telephone was as valid then as it is now.

 

Einstein demonstrated that Matter can disappear, which the Law said was impossible.

The Law of Conservation of Matter was CHANGED.
It became a rule, that Matter an Energy can both disappear as one will transform into the other.

"You may wish to research how the validity of the Law of Conservation of Mass was called into question in the early part of the 1900's"...


"Conservation of mass was amended due to the discovery of E = mc2 by Einstein.
There actually is a better law called the Law of Conservation of Mass-Energy."

 

I am a physicist who has read the Bible as if no one ever told me anything about it.
What I tell you about science is State-of-the-Art.
What I tell you about the Bible is black and white, open to discussion.

 

Science people refer to these numbers as valid to certain decimal places.

3.0 is valid to one decimal place.
3.1 is valid to two decimal places.
3.14 is valid to three decimal places.

The actual value of pi is unknown.
It is valid to hundreds of decimal places, however far you may wish to go.

3.1428 is valid to five decimal places.
But no one has a number here that is wrong.
They have numbers which are more concise, but still off to actual value.

They are all wrong in that sense.

 

Pi is not 3.1
Nor is Pi = 3.14
Nor is Pi = 3.1428

 

Neither the theory of relativity nor special relativity "changed" the law of conservation of mass. What Einstein's equation did was unify the laws of conservation of mass and conservation of energy.

If you want to discuss science, at least get the basics right.

 

and 4 comes after 5.
Your command of the basic decimal system is laudable.

But when I learned math, you could not substitute a prime number for an irrational number.

 

You say the sillies things and seem content on maintaining a wrong opinion you start with, while trying to change the way science and Math people use the "significance" of numbers:



NOTE:

There are two kinds of numbers in the world:

exact:
example: There are exactly 12 eggs in a dozen.
example: Most people have exactly 10 fingers and 10 toes.


inexact numbers:
example: any measurement.
If I quickly measure the width of a piece of notebook paper, I might get 220 mm (2 significant figures). If I am more precise, I might get 216 mm (3 significant figures). An even more precise measurement would be 215.6 mm (4 significant figures).


http://www.chem.tamu.edu/class/fyp/mathrev/mr-sigfg.html

 

You need to read the history of the change in this Law, and, also, to read the Law itself, itself.

"According to the law of conservation of matter: Matter cannot be created nor destoryed."

But we discovered that by using energy, matter can be created.
In fact, we even started to measure matter in terms of units of energy, and speak of them both as if they were the same thing, (which they are not).

 

Amazing demonstration of not knowing much about mathematics.

That little blurb on two types of numbers is the equivalent of saying there are two types of people in the world, smart and stupid.

BTW, there is such a thing as an exact measurement.

 

Perhaps this link is easier for you to understand.

http://home.utah.edu/~u0577548/Conservation%20of%20Matter/sum_of_parts.htm

 

You're talking about precision, not validity. Whether a given level of precision is valid will depend on the context.

The value of PI is known, it just can't be precisely represented as either a decimal or fraction. That's actually one of the important characteristics of the constant, hence the relevance of that not being recognised in the Biblical reference to it.

 

The value is NOT known.

We can not say what it is.
And we can ALWAYS find one more decimal place if we need one more.

3
3.1
3.14
3.142
3.1428
...

On and on forever is working TOWARDS pi.

 

We know pi is the circumference of a circle divided by its diameter. We know pi is the area of a circle divided by its radius squared. We know pi is approximately 3.14159 (not sure where your ...28 came from).

All of those values are accurate and valid in appropriate circumstances. Knowing that it is an irrational number is important but that isn't the same as not knowing its value. In the real world most values are "close enough" estimates after all. That's only an issue if you're not aware you're making an estimate or the general level of precision you're using.

 

We still do not know what the number actually is.
We have discovered Pi up to a very large string of decimal values, but ALWAYS with a remainder, which still continues to show up.

 

I never said we did but number =/= value.

In the context of this thread (do you actually remember what the context of the thread is?), what matters is that we know PI is an irrational number, we know it has no precise decimal value and we know it isn't exactly 3. I vaguely remember that being relevant for some reason.

 

... we do not know the final value of Pi.
We suspect it is a never ending decimal.
It is not 3, nor 3.14, but some number we will never discover.