±«Óătv

As I posted elsewhere, some decades back, the legislature of Indiana passed a law redefining the value of pi, the transcendental number which expresses the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter from approximately 3.14 to exactly 3. When the law went into effect, every automobile and truck tire in the state went slightly flat. As the Parkay Margerine ad of a few years ago said; "It's not nice to fool around with mother nature."

Andy McIntosh, what have you done to my country? This is the worst thing to reach these shores from Great Britain since the invasion of the Beagles :>)

The best use of Pi (Ď€) in science fiction has to be Carl Sagan's Contact in which a pattern is discovered in Pi, far from the decimal point in base 11. (There's an interesting little discussion on that .) The whole novel is a brilliant exploration of the relationship of theism to science.

By the way, on the subject of Pi, Mark refers to an old bible problem, on which I have a question for the evangelicals among us who subscribe to the infallibility of Scripture: Billy, PB, umm... are there others? Ok.

1 Kings 7:23 reads: "He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits to measure around it."

This verse from the Holy, Inerrant, Infallible Word of God has just proclaimed the value of Pi to be 3. But every middle school student knows that Pi is 3.14.... etc.

Who is right, Billy, PB? God or mathematicians? (Maybe Mark's scenario in comment #1 isn't so farfetched after all?)

Recently, an idiot savant amazed scientists and mathematicians alike by memorizing and reciting the digits of pi to 10,000 places and got it exactly right. He can instantly compute arithmetic computations of any two numbers, each up to 10,000. His explanation of numbers was interesting and unique. He senses each number as a separate landscape which he described for a few cases in detail. He somehow knew how these landscapes would fit together in various mathematical operations. There is a lot about the workings of the human mind which is not understood at all.

would this be a good time to re-post my satire of Darwinism? No?

here goes anyway....PB;-

Darwin’s folly

A dozen people are found dead at a remote mountain spot. Near the bodies a cow placidly chews some grass.
Forensic examinations of the bodies found that some had been bitten by a poisonous spider, others had been crushed by a boa constrictor and yet others had been savaged by an alligator. A team of forensic scientists checked the area but could find no trace of the spider, snake or alligator.
After a few weeks, a neophyte forensic scientist called Darwin knocked on the door of his senior officer: “Excuse me sir, but I think I’ve solved the puzzle of those dozen dead bodies.”
His senior officer: “Darwin, what made you think it was a puzzle, it was just an unfortunate series of encounters with wild animals. It happens all the time.”
Darwin: “No sir. What actually happened is that these people were at this remote spot when an amoeba turned up. But through a process I shall call Darwinism, the amoeba mutated and adapted to its environment and developed into a poisonous spider, then a boa, followed by an alligator until it became what it now is, a cow. At each stage of its development it attacked several people until they were all dead, but at the moment it is still a cow.”
His senior officer interjected: “Hmmm, very interesting Darwin, I think I can see your logic. But tell me, did you ever see one of these species change into another?”
Darwin: “No sir, but each stage is bigger than the previous, so there is a logical pattern.”
His senior officer: “Well, do you know anyone else who has seen one of these species change into another?”
Darwin: “No sir, but I have many preserved specimens of amoebas, spiders, boas, alligators and cows which I have spent years studying.”
His senior officer: “Well, have you ever managed to replicate this process in a lab or seen or heard of anyone else doing it?”
Darwin: “No sir, it’s such a delicate process that the animal involved can’t do it if someone is watching. Each stage must have happened when the deceased weren’t looking.”
His senior officer: “Well do you think you could replicate this process under lab conditions? We have our professional credibility to maintain in this department you understand.”
Darwin: “I have no idea sir, it is just a theory I have.”
His senior officer: “Darwin, did it ever occur to you that it might just have been a spider, a boa and an alligator that killed these people and that the cow just wandered by long after the event, totally innocent of it all?”
Darwin: “But sir, that wouldn’t fit with my theory.”
His officer: “Hmmm, yes of course, good point Darwin. I was beginning to think you were losing it there until you clarified that for me. Get your report written up and onto my desk first thing in the morning. And between you and me, I think you may just be promoted to be my new assistant by the end of the month. The position is becoming vacant and I think I could use someone with your obvious talents.”
Darwin: “Yes sir, thank you sir.”
ENDS

MARK ...

Calm down. The Onion piece is SATIRE. It's a joke. It's not a real protest!!!

by the way John

I have succubed to your superior wisdom (?).... see the faithworks entry...

But I cant promise I will go back to it... thinking of cutting way back on all this stuff...
PB

Re Post 4: Mark wrote:

"There is a lot about the workings of the human mind which is not understood at all"

Mrak:

I argee!

Subject: Brain Research

Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy in Egnlnad, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is that the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae.

The rset can be a total mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe.

Dno’t you tnihk taht is qutie amzanig?

Rgerads,
Mihceal

Michael #8
I have only one comment to your post;

algoperaoaoeoopwefporujaafhioerhoi

PB- Thanks. I've left a reply over at Faithworks. :-)

Hey, Isn't that pb holding the placard?

PB,
RE #5

Have you been on the FSM website again?

Pb's been noodled by some complex carbohydrates I think!!

Looks like everyone has opted for the ruductio ad absurdum tack as a new years resolution. Hold on folks, it could be a silly year!

Gee

John

I have responded to your response on faithworks blog.

Yes GW, been on FSM this morning and what a bunch of lighthearted jolly lads and lasses they are.

I am cutting down me webtime for a while now, while look in often and drop a line occasionally though.

Tony - arggghhh!!!! they promised me they wouldn't use that photo!

PB

BTW

I was looking over the Behe thing.

It appears to me that when the court decided that ID was religion that was not strictly speaking true.

What was really decided was that a religious worldview was required to consider interpreting the data from an ID viewpoint.

Both are scientific methods, one assumes no God, one assumes God.

Who tests the valdity of the assumptions?

PB

BTW, this blog intro is misleading. McIntosh never criticised TSLOT; he criticised the THEORY of evolution.

But as ardent evolutionists know, evolution is still just a theory with many gaps in evidence.

Not looking to re-enter the debate on this website, but TSLOT is not the only law of physics under threat from religious fundies, according to the onion: