Posted on 06/14/2002 7:32:58 AM PDT by aculeus
I don't see it that way. I see that there are in fact two circles that can be measured and need to be described in order for complete information to be delivered. One circle clearly refers to the rim and for that we are given the diameter. I for one would never assume the rim to be the same size as the main body. For example, I have a coke can in front of me with a rim that is smaller than the main body and I have a tea cup where the rim is larger.
The author then gives measurements of the body of the vessel.
Seeing that it was designed and built to begin with and seeing that the author is so specific about his measurments and seeing that this text would have probably been corrected by some monk if it was clearly wrong then I submit it is you who is attempting to skew the plain written text to fit your view.
No study is necessary; all you need to know is the fact that polonium is a decay product of uranium. That's all there is to it.
You have presented nothing, just taken the conversation further and further away.
What if i asked you for the same...and not from the pages of some tome written ages ago back in some sort of provable means...whether it be a voice from the heavens of scientific proof! I am 100% certain you would answer me with claims of 'i do not have to' or that i am 'a heathen sinner who is not worthy of an answer!' It is interesting that people like you always react in an acerbic manner to anyone who offers a countering statement to your beliefs!
Anyway back to my 'infallible' facts! First of all only megalomaniacs and loonies believe in infallibe absolute stuff(and even though God may be infallible it is humans who 'interpret' his meanings, and humans are defnitely not infallible, and thus may taint any absolute truth through their 'interpretations').
And thus i would like for you to also provide 'infallible' proof...and before you start quoting Biblical verses claiming that since they are the word of God they are infallible (which would be an easy way out for you) it would be nice for you to provide conclusive proof that can be accepted and proven. After all it would be easy for me to bring a book of Fairy tales and claim that since it talks of unicorns and mer-men they exist!
Anyway back to my sources! First of all you can find backing for my assertations from ANY book backed by scientific fact that analyzes geographical history (the various ages of the earth), delves into history and pre-history (the various civilizations and lithic ages), biology (the time span for the current genetic diversity to occur), physics (the cooling stages of the mantle and the condensation of the atmosphere to allow for percolation), chemistry, and a host of many other fields and facets. Basically if you have a child ask him or her for her science book, or maybe go to your local library! You will find my 'sources' there!
However if you are referring to the sources for the post i put on FR they are as follows:
It is from a site http://www.crystalinks.com/narmer.html
Or you could simply do a search on the web for resources on ancient civilizations and also on the age of the earth! Or as i said before go to the library and check on the age of the earth!
Here are some sources on the age of the Earth:
The generally accepted age for the Earth and the rest of the solar system is about 4.55 billion years (plus or minus about 1%). This value is derived from several different lines of evidence.
The oldest rocks which have been found so far (on the Earth) date to about 3.8 to 3.9 billion years ago (by several radiometric dating methods). Some of these rocks are sedimentary, and include minerals which are themselves as old as 4.1 to 4.2 billion years. Rocks of this age are relatively rare, however rocks that are at least 3.5 billion years in age have been found on North America, Greenland, Australia, Africa, and Asia.
While these values do not compute an age for the Earth, they do establish a lower limit (the Earth must be at least as old as any formation on it). This lower limit is at least concordant with the independently derived figure of 4.55 billion years for the Earth's actual age
The most direct means for calculating the Earth's age is a Pb/Pb isochron age, derived from samples of the Earth and meteorites. This involves measurement of three isotopes of lead (Pb-206, Pb-207, and either Pb-208 or Pb-204). A plot is constructed of Pb-206/Pb-204 versus Pb-207/Pb-204.
Over time, the amounts of Pb-206 and Pb-207 will change in some samples, as these isotopes are decay end-products of uranium decay (U-238 decays to Pb-206, and U-235 decays to Pb-207). This causes the data points to separate from each other. The higher the uranium-to-lead ratio of a rock, the more the Pb-206/Pb-204 and Pb-207/Pb-204 values will change with time.
There are also other measurement methods apart from the radiological method. These are: The Accumulation of Helium in the Atmosphere; The Decay of the Earth's Magnetic field; The Accumulation of Metals into the Oceans.
The difference between the two diameters are not that significant to convey the amount that the vessel could contain. The idea that the instructions for the original design would have focused on the rim makes sense to me. For example, I call in a contractor and tell him I want a hot tub 10 feet from rim to rim and I want the edge to flair out. This makes far more sense to me.
Ask Mohammad.
Given that Bronze Age men penned this particular "word of God", I would tend to believe the 21st Century scientists.
Or you might assume you are interpreting it wrong and you need to check yourself.But I can understand that its important for you to believe that the author isn't talking about two separate circles. Even though that is a preferable interpretation given that he describes the rim separately.
Makes me wonder why God didn't just poison the atmosphere with sarin gas and give Noah plans to make gas masks. Or better still, just waive his magic god wand and make all the evil people vanish.
And God could have used allegories. But fundamentalists don't like that one. Many religions have a birth (Creation story in the Christian faith's case) and a rebirth (the flood wipes it out and voila--new world) story. Just following the typical pattern of religious stories.
I would, but he's dead...
You have presented "evidence" from creationist websites done by scientists who's faith is so fragile that they can't accept the fact the Bible is not inerrant
If you believe that animals talk, that dinosaurs were around in biblical times, that the universe was created in 6 days, that woman came from the rib of man, and that all of mankind came from Adam & Eve that's your problem not mine.
Disputes with scientific theory - and it is all theory - do not make biblical creationism the default alternative.
We do not have in-fallible methods of measurement and all have been proven to be wrong to varying degrees. They also require constant environments or rely of known of today being applied to the past.
The point is that Old Earth/Macroevolution is not proven and there is evidence that may point to the Flood theory.
I did not however claim it scientifically as anything more than a theory which is more than I can say for your crowd.
wave, d'oh
Oh yeah, that scientists-trying-to-make-the-earth-older-than-it-really-is conspiracy. I keeping forgetting...
Yes there are. And all have opposing views with Scientific evidence. I think I covered The Accumulation of Helium in the Atmosphere; The Decay of the Earth's Magnetic field; The Accumulation of Mud into the Oceans.
And you need not make fun of others or be condescending. It belittles your comments and makes you look small and closed minded.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.