E
edwest2
Guest
I sincerely hope that God reveals the fullness of His knowledge to you.
The sacred classroom is now the home of a godless belief system.
God bless,
Ed
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
The sacred classroom is now the home of a godless belief system.
God bless,
Ed
T
ThomasToo
Guest
I think the problem runs deeper than that. Those people vote and the people for whom they vote try to cut funding to research based on evolution (as well as other sorts of research but that’s not germane).They won’t become leading scientists. But that’s OK, I have no problem with people being YECs, or geocentrists, or flat-earthers, or alchemists. We just shouldn’t spend precious school classroom time teaching pseudo-science. Leave that to the home-school movement.
R
ricmat
Guest
Oh Lord help us now. First, StA believes the April fool article about pi=3, and now is slandering home schooling.They won’t become leading scientists. But that’s OK, I have no problem with people being YECs, or geocentrists, or flat-earthers, or alchemists. We just shouldn’t spend precious school classroom time teaching pseudo-science. Leave that to the home-school movement.
Off the deep end?
T
ThomasToo
Guest
Actually, in 1897, Indiana tried to define pi to be 3.2 (House Bill #246). This bill passed their House and died in their Senate.It was an April fool joke, first posted on the talkorigins newsgroup.
nmsr.org/alabama.htm
Nice try. But no cigar.
R
ricmat
Guest
So, when you’re doing some calculations, and pi is involved, what number do you use for pi? Hint: whatever number you respond with in your post will be wrong.Actually, in 1897, Indiana tried to define pi to be 3.2 (House Bill #246). This bill passed their House and died in their Senate.
E
edwest2
Guest
There is no research based on evolution. None. Genetic knockout experiments where they remove something.I think the problem runs deeper than that. Those people vote and the people for whom they vote try to cut funding to research based on evolution (as well as other sorts of research but that’s not germane).
The organism lived. Write that down.
The organism died. Write that down.
Nothing happened. Write that down.
The hunt for new medications is still a trial and error process where hundreds of tubes of bad stuff are injected with hundreds of chemical combinations to see what happens.
uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/why-do-we-invoke-darwin/
God bless,
Ed
T
ThomasToo
Guest
Which is why I answer is ‘it depends.’ I typically use as many significant digits of pi as I have significant digits of my measurements. That said I know that’s only an approximation of what is actually pi.So, when you’re doing some calculations, and pi is involved, what number do you use for pi? Hint: whatever number you respond with in your post will be wrong.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
OK, thanks. I’m glad it’s not true.It was an April fool joke, first posted on the talkorigins newsgroup.
nmsr.org/alabama.htm
Nice try. But no cigar.
R
ricmat
Guest
I’ll bet you’ve actually used 3.2 at some times in the past. Back in my early days before electronic calculators were invented (not quite back to 1897), school tests which required an actual numerical answer involving pi often allowed rounding to 3.1 or 3.2, so long as you said what it was you were rounding to.Which is why I answer is ‘it depends.’ I typically use as many significant digits of pi as I have significant digits of my measurements. That said I know that’s only an approximation of what is actually pi.
It seems to me that StA (and now you?) are attempting to mock religious people. As I’ve mentioned to StA in the past, when you start to use mockery, it means you’re out of real ammunition.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Which belief system should be maintained in the science classroom? Jewish? Christian? Islamic? Hindu? Buddhist? Agnostic? Deist? Atheist?The sacred classroom is now the home of a godless belief system.
Or should this be by majority vote in the individual community?
G
grannymh
Guest
No.You mean like ‘there are so many scientific proofs in favor of evolution’ (Pope Benedict XVI’s Address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, 10.31.08)?
Or ‘Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical [Humani Generis], some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than a mere hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies—which was neither planned nor sought—constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory’ (Pope John Paul II’s Address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, 10.22.1996)?
B
buffalo
Guest
Are these the only options?Thomastoo, here are some possible explanations of your conundrum, drawn up on on Young Earth Creationist (YEC) principles:
(1) At the end of the flood Noah navigated to a point in the water just above Australia, anchored a raft there, and left the marsupials on the raft, which gradually sank with the receding flood waters, depositing the animals where they need to be. Noah did the same for the animals of North and South America, Antarctica, Africa, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Greenland and Madagascar (it was a complicated navigational itinerary). The rest of the animals were dispersed by land migration to Europe and Asia.
(2) After the flood, God triggered the Third Law of Accelerated Continental Drift (LACD-3).* The animals migrated from the ark to where they were supposed to be, the continents sped off to where they were supposed to end up, and here we are - QED.
(3) God magically transported all the animals (in suspended animation) through the air to their respective continents.
I hope this helps!
StAnastasia
- I know that law sounds fantastical and made up, but so is everything else in YEC “science.”
Didn’t I just read an science journal speculating that a creature “rafted” to another continent?
StA - mock this!
Animals Populated Madagascar by Rafting There
ScienceDaily (Jan. 21, 2010) — How did the lemurs, flying foxes and narrow-striped mongooses get to the large, isolated island of Madagascar sometime after 65 million years ago?
A pair of scientists say their research confirms the longstanding idea that the animals hitched rides on natural rafts blown out to sea.
more…
T
ThomasToo
Guest
I typically–when I was younger–used as many digits on which I could get my hands but frankly that’s not the point. To be frank, I feel like you ignored my actual response because no matter what numbers I used I always knew it was an approximation of the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter and not that number itself.I’ll bet you’ve actually used 3.2 at some times in the past. Back in my early days before electronic calculators were invented (not quite back to 1897), school tests which required an actual numerical answer involving pi often allowed rounding to 3.1 or 3.2, so long as you said what it was you were rounding to.
It seems to me that StA (and now you?) are attempting to mock religious people. As I’ve mentioned to StA in the past, when you start to use mockery, it means you’re out of real ammunition.
I’m not trying to mock anyone but I think most religious beliefs (especially those of young earth creationists and people who believe in a historical Noah) are beyond unreasonable. I do, however, use humor to try to show that such beliefs don’t make any sense. I see almost a hierarchy of reasonableness of beliefs from most reasonable theistic belief (1) to least (4):
- Deism
- Personal god
- Personal god plus substitution atonement (i.e. mainline Christianity)
- Personal god plus substitution atonement plus young earth creationism (i.e. fundamentalist Christianity)
B
buffalo
Guest
22/7?So, when you’re doing some calculations, and pi is involved, what number do you use for pi? Hint: whatever number you respond with in your post will be wrong.
R
ricmat
Guest
Actually, I think it is the point.I typically–when I was younger–used as many digits on which I could get my hands but frankly that’s not the point.
When you are involved in complex calculations, and do NOT have an electronic calculator or computer handy, it can be quite cumbersome and time consuming to use a lot of digits. Even if you memorized the first 100 digits of pi, I can’t believe that if you needed to divide by pi, that you’d actually use that many digits in long division (at least if you were doing the calculation by yourself).
E
edwest2
Guest
The atheists have taken over the classroom. That is a fact.Which belief system should be maintained in the science classroom? Jewish? Christian? Islamic? Hindu? Buddhist? Agnostic? Deist? Atheist?
Or should this be by majority vote in the individual community?
Materialism is the new dogma. You are nothing but another animal.
God bless,
Ed
T
ThomasToo
Guest
I’m sorry but I think I’ve missed your point. My point is no matter how we abridge pi, we know it’s only an approximation. As such trying to say–especially by law–that pi is anything other than what it is (a transcendental number that is the ratio of a circle’s circumference to its diameter) especially by law.Actually, I think it is the point.
When you are involved in complex calculations, and do NOT have an electronic calculator or computer handy, it can be quite cumbersome and time consuming to use a lot of digits. Even if you memorized the first 100 digits of pi, I can’t believe that if you needed to divide by pi, that you’d actually use that many digits in long division (at least if you were doing the calculation by yourself).
‘What is your point?’ ThomasToo asks without spite or irony in an earnest attempt to understand what he missed.
T
ThomasToo
Guest
I think science has taken over the classroom as well it should.The atheists have taken over the classroom. That is a fact.
Materialism is the new dogma. You are nothing but another animal.
I would, however, like to know why your religion deserves prime place in the classroom and not, for example, the ideas that thetans are responsible for our ability to think or that Unkulunkulu formed mankind out of reeds or that Ymir fathered the first two humans?
R
ricmat
Guest
In practical terms, you must truncate pi to the number of digits which you are capable of using. For Indiana in 1887, 3.2 was probably a good approximation for practical uses. And I suppose a third of the folks using 3, another third using 3.1, and another third using 3.2 would have led to all kinds of confusion (and perhaps even some sort of dishonesty - although I’m not clever enough to figure that out.)I’m sorry but I think I’ve missed your point. My point is no matter how we abridge pi, we know it’s only an approximation. As such trying to say–especially by law–that pi is anything other than what it is (a transcendental number that is the ratio of a circle’s circumference to its diameter) especially by law.
‘What is your point?’ ThomasToo asks without spite or irony in an earnest attempt to understand what he missed.
T
ThomasToo
Guest
Oh that’s fine. Does it make sense to say that pi is 3.2 even if we truncate it to such a value (even though it’s bad rounding) for shorthand?In practical terms, you must truncate pi to the number of digits which you are capable of using. For Indiana in 1887, 3.2 was probably a good approximation for practical uses. And I suppose a third of the folks using 3, another third using 3.1, and another third using 3.2 would have led to all kinds of confusion (and perhaps even some sort of dishonesty - although I’m not clever enough to figure that out.)
- Status
- Not open for further replies.