Sen. James Inhofe: Bible Refutes Climate Change

[JoltinJoe]

I wouldn't be giving him so much trouble if he'd just admit he made a mistake and that the bible in a literal context does say some things that are contradictory to reality instead of being a condescending *******.

[D1B]

You guys are calling me a prick. That's the irony of this place. How are your first wives doing? What do they call you?

Yea, yea, I know. It was all their faults.

It's a great this place exists so a bunch of you can try the reverse the reality which is your lives: divorced, bitter, surfing the web for porn.

I made a simple and correct point: the Bible does not say Pi is 3, and I proved that, in context, the language you were distorting was simply describing a large basin by giving approximate measures of its size. Like when you give directions and tell someone, "It's three miles down the road."

That a whole bunch of you bitter, contentious people can't stand to just admit you were wrong is no news. You'd rather keep to your lies because that's what you are all about: narrow, tunnel-visioned, opinionated people.

But the Bible does not say Pi equals 3, and if you still say so after reading this, you're just being stubborn or stupid.

Joe, maybe you need a break from this place.


Take a few weeks off, then start a "bankruptcy law" thread. That'll be good for you.

Yep, 6 am and going to the health club. I'll be checking in, all day, so don't you worry.

Joe's forearm = 4"

D1B's forearm = 24"

[JohnStOnge]

When we want your opinion, we''ll give it to you. Until then, shut the fvck up.

Well since you made me have to type something just to say "no," I think I'll look up that quote from the last IPCC Phyical Science Basis report, Chapter 9, Understanding and Attributing Climate Change, Page 668 (go to http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-repor ... apter9.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; then do a "Find" on the word "experiment").

As noted in the SAR (IPCC, 1996) and the TAR (IPCC, 2001), unequivocal attribution would require
controlled experimentation with the climate system. Since that is not possible...

Just doing my duty in periodically reminding people that it has not been unequivocally established that there is a cause and effect relationship between human activity and climate change. It's that inconvenient principle whereby one cannot legitimately infer cause and effect on the basis of statistical data in the absence of controlled experimentation.

[D1B]

When we want your opinion, we''ll give it to you. Until then, shut the fvck up.

Well since you made me have to type something just to say "no," I think I'll look up that quote from the last IPCC Phyical Science Basis report, Chapter 9, Understanding and Attributing Climate Change, Page 668 (go to http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-repor ... apter9.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; then do a "Find" on the word "experiment").

As noted in the SAR (IPCC, 1996) and the TAR (IPCC, 2001), unequivocal attribution would require
controlled experimentation with the climate system. Since that is not possible...

Just doing my duty in periodically reminding people that it has not been unequivocally established that there is a cause and effect relationship between human activity and climate change. It's that inconvenient principle whereby one cannot legitimately infer cause and effect on the basis of statistical data in the absence of controlled experimentation.

You're a moron.

[Cap'n Cat]

LMFatFAO @ first wives and forearm measurements!!!!!!!

[kalm]

You guys are calling me a prick. That's the irony of this place. How are your first wives doing? What do they call you?

Yea, yea, I know. It was all their faults.

It's a great this place exists so a bunch of you can try the reverse the reality which is your lives: divorced, bitter, surfing the web for porn.

I made a simple and correct point: the Bible does not say Pi is 3, and I proved that, in context, the language you were distorting was simply describing a large basin by giving approximate measures of its size. Like when you give directions and tell someone, "It's three miles down the road."

That a whole bunch of you bitter, contentious people can't stand to just admit you were wrong is no news. You'd rather keep to your lies because that's what you are all about: narrow, tunnel-visioned, opinionated people.

But the Bible does not say Pi equals 3, and if you still say so after reading this, you're just being stubborn or stupid.

Projection much?

As an official JJ admirer, I'm telling ya, you're getting owned here. It' OK to admit you're wrong sometimes. All us lying bitter, contentious, narrow, tunnel-visioned, opinionated, stubborn, stupid, divorced, and lonely atheists will forgive you.

[JohnStOnge]

You're a moron.

I am correct. I understand the principle so I decided to see how the IPCC addressed it. I opened the chapter on "Attributing" climate change and did a "Find" on "experiment." First "hit" was that quote. After the part I quoted they went on to generally explain what they did since it's not possible to conduct controlled experiments. But none of that matters to the point. They said, accurately, that unequivocal attribution would require controled experiments and said it's not possible to do that.

I don't completely agree with them. I think they''d have to conduct controlled experiments using mulltiple earth type planets so that they could have "treatment" planets and "control" planets in order to infer cause and effect. But, either way, it's not possible.

I'm going to be interested in seeing if a statement like that is in their next report. In one sense it doesn't matter because it's the truth whether they put it in there or not. But in another sense it's nice to have that in there so one can point it out to people who think that the idea that humans are causing climate change has been established with a level of certainty that's "as certain as it gets" in science.

[JohnStOnge]

I went back and read a little and I can't believe you guys are arguing that what YT quoted is a definite indication that the Bible says Pi = 3 (exactly 3, that is). It could just be a matter of reporting the measurements for that structure to the nearest whole unit (nearest cubit). 30/PI, if reported to the nearest whole unit, is 10 (9.549296586)

While it's true that there are instances in that Chapter in which measurements are reported to the nearest half-cubit, the references involve relatively small objects (one half cubit, one and one half cubits). A situation in which the author was less precise about larger stuctures is not implausible.

I know you guys are having a lot of fun but, c'mon.

And actually PI does equal three to the nearest whole number. Plus it''s not precisely correct no matter how many digits you write to the right of the decimal point because it's an irrational number. So if you say PI = 3.14 or 3.14159265358979 or go farther than that it's not correct.

Joe is right. It's ridiculous to do an "AH HAAA" over that one as though there was some intent by the writer to give some some exactly precise description of a situation involving potentially imprecise measurements to start with. Like we should have expected him to write something like "It was 9.708451525 cubits across and 30.49999999 cubits around" instead of just saying 10 and 30.

[Vidav]

I went back and read a little and I can't believe you guys are arguing that what YT quoted is a definite indication that the Bible says Pi = 3 (exactly 3, that is). It could just be a matter of reporting the measurements for that structure to the nearest whole unit (nearest cubit). 30/PI, if reported to the nearest whole unit, is 10 (9.549296586)

While it's true that there are instances in that Chapter in which measurements are reported to the nearest half-cubit, the references involve relatively small objects (one half cubit, one and one half cubits). A situation in which the author was less precise about larger stuctures is not implausible.

I know you guys are having a lot of fun but, c'mon.

And actually PI does equal three to the nearest whole number. Plus it''s not precisely correct no matter how many digits you write to the right of the decimal point because it's an irrational number. So if you say PI = 3.14 or 3.14159265358979 or go farther than that it's not correct.

Joe is right. It's ridiculous to do an "AH HAAA" over that one as though there was some intent by the writer to give some some exactly precise description of a situation involving potentially imprecise measurements to start with. Like we should have expected him to write something like "It was 9.708451525 cubits across and 30.49999999 cubits around" instead of just saying 10 and 30.

I actually agree with you that it was probably just rounded. I was just arguing with JJ's assertion that YT was wrong based on the fact that they measured in cubits.

[JohnStOnge]

I actually agree with you that it was probably just rounded. I was just arguing with JJ's assertion that YT was wrong based on the fact that they measured in cubits.

I see. One good thing to do anytime one sees one of these "Bible inaccuracy" things is to search the web for Christian rebuttals. I just did that and got a hit on something I hadn't even thought of. It's at http://www.icr.org/article/does-bible-c ... ct-value-/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. Part of the basic argument is what I thought of on my own. But there's another part Here is the center of the argument:

Construction techniques in those days were surprisingly advanced. We can assume that their mathematics was precise and measurements handled with care. Notice that the basin "was an hand breadth thick, and the brim thereof was wrought like the brim of a cup, with flowers of lilies" (v.26). A "hand breadth" is an inexact distance of about four inches, but sufficient for this general description. The whole basin flared out at the top, much like a lily. So, exactly what do the dimensions given really represent?

The diameter of the basin would be the inside diameter, measured from side to side. But the circumference would be measured by placing a cord around the outside, then measuring the length of the cord. Furthermore, at what elevation along the tapered basin was the measurement taken? Obviously, these are not intended to be precise, but to give the overall impression of great size and beauty.

Engineers have adopted a technique to insure that reported measurements are properly understood. To do this they use the convention called "significant figures." The number 10 is quite different from the number 10.0 or 10.00 in the precision it implies. To an engineer the number 10 can actually mean anything between 9.5 and 10.5. Likewise, the number 30 can actually mean anything between 29.5 and 30.5.

So you've got two possible factors. One is the rounding process and the other is the possibility that the diameter was measured from inside wall to inside wall and the circumfrence was measured along the outside wall.

Anyway, I don't think the PI=3 thing is one of the stronger "Bible Error" assertions.

[HI54UNI]

I like pie.

[Pwns]

Get over the pi=3 thing. There are textbooks used in schools that say a kilobyte is 1000 bytes and that the sea-level gravitational acceleration is 10 meters per second per second. That doesn't make them necessarily wrong.

[grizzaholic]

Get over the pi=3 thing. There are textbooks used in schools that say a kilobyte is 1000 bytes and that the sea-level gravitational acceleration is 10 meters per second per second. That doesn't make them necessarily wrong.

[Vidav]

Get over the pi=3 thing. There are textbooks used in schools that say a kilobyte is 1000 bytes and that the sea-level gravitational acceleration is 10 meters per second per second. That doesn't make them necessarily wrong.

My son got in trouble recently because a classmate told him something and he didn't believe them. So he asked the teacher if it were true and the teacher told him it was rude to question someone. Apparently he is just supposed to believe everything he is told.

My wife talked to the teacher about it, she is lucky it wasn't me. I would have lost my shit. That basically goes against the way I have taught my kids to function.

Why would you just believe everything you were told without ever questioning anything?

[grizzaholic]

My son got in trouble recently because a classmate told him something and he didn't believe them. So he asked the teacher if it were true and the teacher told him it was rude to question someone. Apparently he is just supposed to believe everything he is told.

My wife talked to the teacher about it, she is lucky it wasn't me. I would have lost my shit. That basically goes against the way I have taught my kids to function.

Why would you just believe everything you were told without ever questioning anything?

So....what you are saying is that I shouldn't be believing everything AZ says and quit taking it for fact?

[Ibanez]

My son got in trouble recently because a classmate told him something and he didn't believe them. So he asked the teacher if it were true and the teacher told him it was rude to question someone. Apparently he is just supposed to believe everything he is told.

My wife talked to the teacher about it, she is lucky it wasn't me. I would have lost my shit. That basically goes against the way I have taught my kids to function.

Why would you just believe everything you were told without ever questioning anything?

sounds like retards in my wife's masters classes. You can question or comment without these cu td getting offended. They had an assignment to create an original idea. One girl came up with vintage shirts. And got pissed when Krista told her that isn't original. People are so thin skin. I blame the parents.

[kalm]

My son got in trouble recently because a classmate told him something and he didn't believe them. So he asked the teacher if it were true and the teacher told him it was rude to question someone. Apparently he is just supposed to believe everything he is told.

My wife talked to the teacher about it, she is lucky it wasn't me. I would have lost my shit. That basically goes against the way I have taught my kids to function.

Why would you just believe everything you were told without ever questioning anything?

I have a close friend who is absolutely brilliant. Got his Phd at a relatively young age, loves to learn and conduct research, is open minded, and is now teaching Chinese History at a small private school in Massachusetts. His father told him sometime around the age of 10 to "question everything in life, Norm...including me"

[citdog]

My son got in trouble recently because a classmate told him something and he didn't believe them. So he asked the teacher if it were true and the teacher told him it is rude to question someone. Apparently he is just supposed to believe everything he is told.

My wife talked to the teacher about it, she is lucky it wasn't me. I would have lost my shit. That basically goes against the way I have taught my kids to function.

Why would you just believe everything you were told without ever questioning anything?

sounds like retards in my wife's masters classes. You can question or comment without these cu td getting offended. They had an assignment to create an original idea. One girl came up with vintage shirts. And got pissed when Krista told her that isn't original. People are so thin skin. I blame the parents.

\


[youtube][/youtube]

[youngterrier]

I actually agree with you that it was probably just rounded. I was just arguing with JJ's assertion that YT was wrong based on the fact that they measured in cubits.

I see. One good thing to do anytime one sees one of these "Bible inaccuracy" things is to search the web for Christian rebuttals. I just did that and got a hit on something I hadn't even thought of. It's at http://www.icr.org/article/does-bible-c ... ct-value-/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. Part of the basic argument is what I thought of on my own. But there's another part Here is the center of the argument:

Construction techniques in those days were surprisingly advanced. We can assume that their mathematics was precise and measurements handled with care. Notice that the basin "was an hand breadth thick, and the brim thereof was wrought like the brim of a cup, with flowers of lilies" (v.26). A "hand breadth" is an inexact distance of about four inches, but sufficient for this general description. The whole basin flared out at the top, much like a lily. So, exactly what do the dimensions given really represent?

The diameter of the basin would be the inside diameter, measured from side to side. But the circumference would be measured by placing a cord around the outside, then measuring the length of the cord. Furthermore, at what elevation along the tapered basin was the measurement taken? Obviously, these are not intended to be precise, but to give the overall impression of great size and beauty.

Engineers have adopted a technique to insure that reported measurements are properly understood. To do this they use the convention called "significant figures." The number 10 is quite different from the number 10.0 or 10.00 in the precision it implies. To an engineer the number 10 can actually mean anything between 9.5 and 10.5. Likewise, the number 30 can actually mean anything between 29.5 and 30.5.

So you've got two possible factors. One is the rounding process and the other is the possibility that the diameter was measured from inside wall to inside wall and the circumfrence was measured along the outside wall.

Anyway, I don't think the PI=3 thing is one of the stronger "Bible Error" assertions.

you're missing the point, I never said that the bible had to be interpreted in that way and that thinking people wouldn't come to rational conclusions, my assertion was that the bible can't be taken in an absolute literal context to assert any scientific or mathematical theory. See Genesis and pi=3

[JohnStOnge]

you're missing the point, I never said that the bible had to be interpreted in that way and that thinking people wouldn't come to rational conclusions, my assertion was that the bible can't be taken in an absolute literal context to assert any scientific or mathematical theory. See Genesis and pi=3

That the Bible can't be taken as absolute literal truth is my view as well. However, I don't think the assertion that the Bible makes the claim that PI = 3 based on that description from Kings is an example of something that can't be taken literally. The numbers given could be accurate to the level of precision reported for that structure.

I will say, though, that on further consideration I don't see what the Creation Institute people are getting at with the discussion of the inner diameter being about 8 inches less than the outer diameter. To me that makes it less likely that the report was accurate.

Nevertheless, it's possible that if everything for that structure was reported to the nearest whole cubit the results are consistent with the true value of PI.

I hate to invoke something Bill Maher has used but, to me, it's a lot more unrealistic to say that someone gets swallowed by a giant fish, survives for three days and three nights, then gets spit out and does his thing.

Of course when it comes right down to it those who believe the Bible is literally true will just say something like what's said at http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/jonah.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;:

the Biblical account is a miraculous one. And we must remember to Trust the Bible first and foremost, even if no other evidence supporting it exists.