Why I hug The Bible instead of a textbook...

[AtmaWeapon]

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/27/science/27KILO.html

(text for those who don't want to do the free signup)

Science Desk | May 27, 2003, Tuesday
Scientists Struggling to Make the Kilogram Right Again

By OTTO POHL (NYT) 1546 words
Late Edition - Final , Section F , Page 3 , Column 2
LEAD PARAGRAPH - In these girth-conscious times, even weight itself has weight issues. The kilogram is getting lighter, scientists say, sowing potential confusion over a range of scientific endeavor.

The kilogram is defined by a platinum-iridium cylinder, cast in England in 1889. No one knows why it is shedding weight, at least in comparison with other reference weights, but the change has spurred an international search for a more stable definition.

I see that it is rather difficult for scientists to keep standards for very long. The kilogram is important in physics and other branches of science because it is an SI base unit, and many other units are derived from it.

Granted, The Bible isn't very useful for determining the airspeed velocity of a laden swallow, but I'm glad to know that I'm put my faith in something that has been unchanged for 2,000 years as opposed to something that is unstable and changes every hundred years or so.

[stormwatcheagle]

Eh, to each their own...

[Tygore]

And that's why I never liked metric.

[Jigglysaint]

I think the Jews said the same thing about the Law untill Jesus came along, so be careful WHERE you put your faith.

[Dracula]

Eh, I hate the metric system... I wouldn't touch it with a 2 meter pole...

[SquishyMon]

I don't see how this is relevant. The kilogram is a universal measurement that is still defined by scales. The original reference weight is just an artifact.

[Jemsee]

Originally posted by AtmaWeapon

... I'm put my faith in something that has been unchanged for 2,000 years as opposed to something that is unstable and changes every hundred years or so.

I share your sentiments exactly.
Case in point, for centuries the earth was considered flat.
The church itself would imprison people who said otherwise.
The church that is supposed to represent the Bible which clearly says in Isaiah 40:21-22 that it is a circle, also translated as globe or sphere.

Isaiah 40:21-22
"21 Do YOU people not know? Do YOU not hear? Has it not been told to YOU from the outset? Have YOU not applied understanding from the foundations of the earth? 22 There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth..."

The Bible is a book to be trusted especially in times of uncertainty.

[tgf_guy]

Originally posted by Jemsee
The Bible is a book to be trusted especially in times of uncertainty.

There is also mention to the, "four corners of the Earth" in several places. Can this not be interpretted as saying, "the Earth is a square?"

[SquishyMon]

Originally posted by tgf_guy


There is also mention to the, "four corners of the Earth" in several places. Can this not be interpretted as saying, "the Earth is a square?"

That may have been referring to a specific land or kingdom, or just an expression (but the other could also have been considered an expression). I think there are many accurate scientific refferences in the Bible, I just don't know where they all are off hand.

[Ganonator]

/me grabs his 2-liter mountain dew.

And we were told metric would be flawless and take over the American education system by 1998. Fucking apathetic Americans. I'm glad to be one of them with my mph and yard sticks. no comment on that bible though.

[AtmaWeapon]

Originally posted by SquishyMon
I don't see how this is relevant. The kilogram is a universal measurement that is still defined by scales. The original reference weight is just an artifact.

Wrong. The reference weights are used as the benchmark to ensure that instruments measure the kilogram properly. If the reference weights change, the instruments have to change to match them. Otherwise, whose scale is the correct one? If the reference weights weren't there, you'd have a thousand different parties with a microgram or so difference between their definitions warring over who was right.



Originally posted by tgf_guy


There is also mention to the, "four corners of the Earth" in several places. Can this not be interpretted as saying, "the Earth is a square?"

It can be interpreted that way. However, it only gives credence to the date of the Bible. At that point in time, people thought the world was flat, so it would only be logical that the people's ideas would reflect that.

Aside from that, the Bible is not a science book. It is a book that lays down the rules I live my life by. Whether or not the author thought that the world was round has nothing to do with whether the morals given are incorrect. Would you discredit the theories put forth in an entire math book because they missed the date of the millenium by 1 year, along with millions of other people? I was assuming the reader was aware of the fact that many people put just as much faith in science as others put in religion. My point was that in many cases, religion is far more stable than science.

[tgf_guy]

Originally posted by AtmaWeapon
It can be interpreted that way. However, it only gives credence to the date of the Bible. At that point in time, people thought the world was flat, so it would only be logical that the people's ideas would reflect that.

I do know of at least one cult or sect that takes that passage seriously, and has a fairly large database of members. (They believe the earth is square, as reference from the four corners of the earth.)


Originally posted by AtmaWeapon
Would you discredit the theories put forth in an entire math book because they missed the date of the millenium by 1 year, along with millions of other people?

Clearly, no, as it is written by humans, who can make marginal mistakes. If the rest of the book was fine, I would not dis-credit it.


Originally posted by AtmaWeapon
I was assuming the reader was aware of the fact that many people put just as much faith in science as others put in religion. My point was that in many cases, religion is far more stable than science.

Religion is unquavering because it does not have any facts or formulas that can be compared against it to find more accurate predictions or measurements; the answers are already written. Whereas Science is based off of human observation and constant refinement.

[Tygore]

Yes, but when people treat science as their religion (as many have), THEN we have a problem.

[tgf_guy]

Originally posted by Tygore
Yes, but when people treat science as their religion (as many have), THEN we have a problem.

A religion is classified as believing in a certain philosophy of life which may include a supreme diety or not, based completely on faith. Whereas something like Science does have evidence to back up many of its claims.

So, it is, technically, impossible to treat science as a religion.

[Tygore]

My point exactly.

[SquishyMon]

Originally posted by AtmaWeapon

Wrong. The reference weights are used as the benchmark to ensure that instruments measure the kilogram properly. If the reference weights change, the instruments have to change to match them. Otherwise, whose scale is the correct one? If the reference weights weren't there, you'd have a thousand different parties with a microgram or so difference between their definitions warring over who was right.


We still have computer measurements, and probably other reference weights as well.

[Jigglysaint]

What religion still thinks the world is flat?

[AtmaWeapon]

Originally posted by tgf_guy

I do know of at least one cult or sect that takes that passage seriously, and has a fairly large database of members. (They believe the earth is square, as reference from the four corners of the earth.)

I'm assuming you mean they have a lot of members, as I could pay money for a bunch of names and addresses and create a large database. I also note that you list no numbers of how large they are. I imagine they don't even make up 1% of religions claiming to be Christian, and as such, can be ignored as outliers.



Originally posted by SquishyMon


We still have computer measurements, and probably other reference weights as well.

Tell me, beyond a shadow of a doubt, who has the most accurate computer measurement.

[TheGeepster]

Originally posted by Jigglysaint
What religion still thinks the world is flat?

Actually, I think there's still one or two out there..

Anyways I appreciate the idea and object lesson behind the first post. And I do note that the Bible is more about spiritual truth that it is a science textbook.

[tgf_guy]

Originally posted by AtmaWeapon
I'm assuming you mean they have a lot of members, as I could pay money for a bunch of names and addresses and create a large database. I also note that you list no numbers of how large they are. I imagine they don't even make up 1% of religions claiming to be Christian, and as such, can be ignored as outliers.


Clearly, you have missed the point. The point was not that there is a crazy sect of people who believe a meaning we know to be false, the point is that everything can be interpreted in a certain way, but it is un-wise to continually hold onto something without a certain backing.

For example: Someone says they are eating a red, roundish fruit. I can assume they are speaking of an apple. However, some other people may consider that it could be a strangely-red peach. We would not know who is right until we see the object that is being debated about, in which we can make a conclusion based off of its other traits.