The Theories of Pianistimo

[pianistimo]

they're trying to square the circle at 3.2

but, don't you think a circle is a sort of window to infinity?  the earth and sun and moon are circles that God says He 'inscribed.'  now, how in the world can He inscribe them on nothing - and have them become something.  3-D 

pi is attemtping to take something flat and turn it three dimensional, imo.  it is a formula that can be taken further in each direction around a circle until you have a sphere in space.  it is so simple and yet so complicated.

the reason, imo, is because we are dealing with a curve that is entirely dependent upon the radius length.  and, in finding it - cuts a path through infinity and calls it finite.  but, there's infinity in a circle.  follow it's border and it is endless.  it leads to the idea of orbits when a circle is pulled on both ends and extended to an elipse.  it may have the same exact circumference - but an entirely different area.  how can this be?  are circles capable of changing sizes?

there's something infinite about circles.  i wouldn't call pi a real number, myself.

how does one figure the inside of an egg shaped object?  what sorts of mathematical concepts go into that?  or - more simply - for an oval.  and, why did God make eggs to be more pointed on one end and rounder on the other?  to stop them from rolling uncontrollably?

this thread has now been read 360 times.

[pianistimo]

archimedes had a bit to say about the circle:
https://www.math.ubc.ca/~cass/archimedes/circle.html

do you ever wonder, also, about the human head.  i mean, God could have made them complete circles.  my 5 year old drew this wonderful circle head and shoulders - divided it up into a straight line down and then sections of three lines across the head and three through the neck and shoulders and colored each section a different color.  it reminds me of all the feelings that  a person can have.  what's funny is that the eyes are facing different directions - one is slightly looking up towards the right and the other is down at the left.

[thalbergmad]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[ronde_des_sylphes]

Pi is a real number.  It is just not rational.

Dan

You meant to say "Pi.........anistimo is real. She is just not rational" ? 

[thalbergmad]

what's funny is that the eyes are facing different directions - one is slightly looking up towards the right and the other is down at the left.

My ex girlfriend had eyes like that. Never knew what the silly cow was looking at.

Thal

[counterpoint]

If we're talking about the impossibility to square a circle,

next step is the impossibility to tune a piano in perfect fifths.

Seems that god wants to irk us 

[prometheus]

the grand canyon couldn't be carved by a very small river of water.  and, you can trace the path of least resistance - when there was a huge amount of water.

The grand canyon wasn't carved by a small river because you can trace the path of the least resistance? Water always takes the path of least resistance, be it a small river or a global flood.

Yet there is a difference. If a global flood takes the least resistance then that means the surface of the water is flat. Or actually since the total planet is flooded and the planet does have some differences in gravity, following the gravitational field of the earth.

If even the tip of mount everest is under water then water has no 'path to follow'.

There is also no water that is flowing from one point to another, the whole planet is covered with water, wherever it may have come from.

Whatever you want to believe, you can't deny that the grand canyon looks exactly like it was carved out by a small river over a very long period of time.

I saw that you even changed your mind on the grand canyon being carved out during the flood saying that 'god created the grand canyon looking old'. Why, how, when?

There are fossils in the grand canyon rock. In your world view fossils were put down during the flood, right? So how is that all possible?

what does this tell you?  that no water was involved?  the river suddenly became huge

But then there was no gorge at all yet. Just a flat surface. Water follows the path of least resistance. So why did it cut out a canyon? The water would quickly spread out over a wide area.

Also, a huge river doesn't cause deeper erosion then a small one. Ack, what am I doing. You are just playing games. You know I am right but you just act this way for some strange reason.

Maybe you seek attention or something. And I stupidly fall for it.

I shouldn't be so naive and trusting. You just aren't worth my time.

[thalbergmad]

Prometheus - you should know by now that Pianistimo invokes the power of God, when she runs out of argument.

Thal

[pianistimo]

prometheus, you seem to be saying you think the waters didn't subside.  but, after 40 days-  that's exactly what happened for the remaining150 days mentioned in genesis 8:1-3 'and God remembered noah and all the beasts and all the cattle that were with him in the ark; and God caused a wind to pass over the earth, and the water subsided.  also the fountains of the deep and the floodgates of the sky were closed, and the rain from the sky was restrained; and the water receded steadily from the earth, and at the end of one hundred and fifty days the water decreased.  and, in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, the ark rested upon the mountains of ararat.'

now, why would God say exactly where the ark landed and rested?  perhaps to not only prove that the flood was global (to have a boat on a mountain is mighty odd) - and the sightings of it continued into the 1900's.  whether satellite imagery or actual pieces of wood from the ark (and the type of nails, etc) and the shape in the snow and ground fit the description of it from the bible.

ok. back to the waters receding.  when the water is at a point enough to impact the land (via underwater twisters) - it can actually act like a drill.  that is how the 'scablands' of washington state, usa and places in iceland were formed.  how else would they naturally come to be?  they were CARVED.  now, the same with the grand canyon.  who carved this?  there is still water there today.

just watch the damage done when a dam breaks.  things break loose and follow a 'least resistant' path. 

as thal says - i will never be convinced that God did not create the canyon partly at the time of the flood - even if he created some of it at creation.  He leaves 'tracks.'  tracks for proving the bible true.  the grand canyon, to me, is a testament to a worldwide flood.  if you ever see it in person - you are totally in awe.

[thalbergmad]

now, why would God say exactly where the ark landed and rested?  perhaps to not only prove that the flood was global (to have a boat on a mountain is mighty odd) - and the sightings of it continued into the 1900's.  whether satellite imagery or actual pieces of wood from the ark (and the type of nails, etc) and the shape in the snow and ground fit the description of it from the bible.

If you are referring to this, it is not the Ark, the dimensions are not what God said, there is no wood, no nails and it is not on Mt Ararat.

Regretfully, there are some tambourine banging websites that claim it to be the real thing, but they are fooling themselves and regretfully others as well.

The same misguided imbeciles also believe in the Shroud, the Spear of Destiny, The Ark of the Covenant and St James's Foreskin.

Pathetic, but some pea brained literalists will never give up.

Thal

[prometheus]

So you are saying that god used magic to carve out the grand canyon as a testimony of the great flood, because a global flood couldn't naturally create the grand canyon, but god ended up carving the grand canyon which looks like it was carved out by a small river over a period of thousands of years.

That's not very smart of god. One would not expect a neatly carved out canyon to be evidence of a great flood. So why did god use magic to deliberately create something that the global flood could not create, that ought to show that a great flood occurred

So the lack of evidence for a global flood is evidence for a global flood because if a great flood occurred the only reason to explain a total lack of evidence is a miracle by god. And the evidence against a global flood proves that a global flood occurred because if a global flood occurred it could only have been god that created this evidence against it.

That way you can 'prove' everything. No matter how much evidence there is against it.


Every thought you produce already carries the presumption that that what you are going to argue for is correct.
While you utterly fail at intelligent thought you surely succeed well in devotion.

Anyway, if there truly is a god, I don't believe in a stupid god, a god that deliberately plants evidence to proof the contrary of the evidence he plants. And I also don't believe in a trickster god that deliberately makes the world look 4.6 billion years when he only created it 6000 years, or seconds, ago, just to test our faith.

So what do you believe in? A stupid god or a trickster god?

[pianistimo]

the ark broke in half.  and probably is now completely disintegrated - but it is still on mt ararat.  the weather is unseasonable most of the year and the turkish government rarely allows visits to the site.  but, they claim that even remnatns of noahs vineyard and house were there.  also several boat anchors (just odd to see them up so high).

thal , you are scared of truth.  the truth is exactly what is written in the bible.

[pianistimo]

prometheus, you didn't read my post.  i said the worldwide flood had to have carved the majority of the grand canyon.  it's a testament to a worldwide flood.

about fossils - at the time of the flood - i think three things happened.  violent earthquakes, flood, and volcanic activity.  the combination of this turmoil cause animals and life to be stuck to the sides of canyon walls - embedded and placed wherever God wanted them.  if any volcanic activity happened or earthquake activity - animals also could fall into these places and be covered with dirt. 

mountain climbers have been found frozen at the bottom of crevaces.  does this mean they are from that geological era?

[prometheus]

There is no ark on mount Ararat.


For proof of a global flood try the field of geology. If there truly was a global flood, if the surface of the earth truly fell down such a large amount when the 'fountains of the deep' were released, if there was truly this huge amount of water in the earth's atmosphere, then surely there is tons and tons and tons of evidence for it.

[pianistimo]

there IS tons and tons of evidence.

prometheus, if you have not visited turkey - i suggest you not make dramatic statements about noah's ark.  how much of the actual ark is still there is questionable - but the past  sightings of it (1800's -1900's)are not.  too many people see the 'imprint' left sTILL TODAY of this incredible boat on a mountain.  the EXACT mountain God said it was.

ps  yes, i know.  i have not visited turkey either.  i shall get there before thal does and take pictures.  i cannot run from the turks - so i will have to dress believably turkish and learn a bit of the language. 

[prometheus]

prometheus, you didn't read my post.  i said the worldwide flood had to have carved the majority of the grand canyon.  it's a testament to a worldwide flood.

But that is impossible. A global flood would never create something as a canyon. Just look at the picture I posted earlier.

If you were going to saw magically conjured underwater twisters that drill, yeah, maybe god could have created the grand canyon that way. But a flood, no. Never. You know this. A tsunami doesn't create a canyon. Covering a continent doesn't create a canyon, etc.

That's just stupid. Either god used magic to drill it out, or it was a little river over a long long period of time, slowly eroding the rock. Think about it. The only reason the river is able to do it is because it erodes specific rocks for a long period of time. If you erode all rocks over a short period of time you will just erode the surface of a global area just a little bit, smoothing it out.

I have visited Turkey. I saw buildings you claim don;t exist there. Thank you.

If there is tons of evidence then why has no one ever found it? Why do all people that are knowledgeable in the field of geology reject your idea, based on the writings of people who had no idea of what planet earth actually was?

[pianistimo]

what buildings did i say didn't exist in turkey?  and what permits granted you access to this site?  it's hard even for scholars to get there.  so you haven't been to mt. ararat in turkey.  merely buildings.  ok.  well, that's farther than i've been, but it doesn't prove anything to me.  climbing the mountain and timing the weather has been the most difficult thing to studying the remnants left of the ark.  but, people actually have pieces of this wood from the ark.

mtDNA migration of peoples and tracing back to one mitochondrial eve might prove this to you.

[prometheus]

Ok, just try it yourself. Take a table, cover it with sand. Then make a caste or something. Or write down in the sand.

Then take several buckets of water, as large as possible, and release them all simultaneously right down unto the table. Or maybe you believe it rained slowly. But remember it rained only for 40 days. To cover the Tibetan plateau, which is 4.5 kilometers hight, one needs a lot of water. Anyway, unleash the water spread out over the table unto the sand.

Maybe build edges around the table so you can contain the water for a while, and then release these edges and let the water out.

Then see if there are any specifically cut our gorges or if the tips of the castles were eroded away and the writing wiped out because the surface eroded away only a little.

Then have a new experiment. Have a bucket with a small hole. Put it above the table covered with sand. Have a little bit of water leak out of the hole and flow down off the table so you create the conditions geologists claim the grand canyon was carved out. Then make sure the bucket remains filled and water remains flowing through your artificial landscape.

Then see if this can create a better gorge.


Remember that sand erodes more than rock. You could actually do the experiment with a soft kind of rock.

[prometheus]

I never claimed I climbed Mt Ararat. I said I visited Turkey, which you asked for. There I saw buildings that are older then you claim the earth is.

[pianistimo]

how old were they?  assuming you aren't using carbon-14 anymores.  i suppose the geological level proved they were millions of years old.   most of the ancient people built buildings out of stone with roofs of various sorts.  how do you date these?

[pianistimo]

prometheus, the conditions of the flood were of such proportion that i could not possibly create an experiment with simply sand and water to make the experiment work.  we had storm conditions, fountains of the deep breaking, volcanos, water unleashed from the heavens unlike what was ever before (floodgates), massive pieces of land breaking up and colliding with others.  what can replicate this?  and it wouldn't have to all happen as the water level went up - it would also happen as the water resided.

it wasn't a simple experiment.

here's a ron wyatt site.  he was an archeologist who's worked on the ark site:
https://www.anchorstone.com/

[ahinton]

Perhaps the most significant word in this thread title is "theories" - as distinct from facts, that is - and the next most significant is "Pianistimo", whose "theories" are alluded to in that title. Quite why it is that some of the ideas put forward here find themselves aired yet again in such detail nevertheless remains beyond me, especially given the amount of genuine bona fide scientific evidence against them.

Susan, even though I know that you did not initiate this thread yourself, I simply cannot refrain from declaring that I really DO wish that you'd stick instead to playing the piano, raising your children, etc. (even abit of pole dancing would be a more acceptable alternative); I don't wish to sound rude, but I hve to say that all these pseudo-Biblical constructs are getting as tiresome as they are threadbare...

Best,

Alistair

[prometheus]

Perhaps the most significant word in this thread title is "theories" - as distinct from facts,

Theories are better than facts.

[pianistimo]

i never called the bible theory.  it is fact.  there.  now things are set straight.

[prometheus]

prometheus, the conditions of the flood were of such proportion that i could not possibly create an experiment with simply sand and water to make the experiment work.

So now it was magic again. What is it. Stop changing your argument.

If a canyon is the natural thing to expect in the case of a global flood one should be able to test that.

If god meant the grand canyon as evidence for the flood he must have known that for it to be evidence it has to be testable.

[ahinton]

Theories are better than facts.

Only when they are, methinks!

Bedest,

Alistair

[ahinton]

i never called the bible theory.  it is fact.  there.  now things are set straight.

Yes - as straight as the earth's circumference...

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

the ark broke in half.  and probably is now completely disintegrated - but it is still on mt ararat.  the weather is unseasonable most of the year and the turkish government rarely allows visits to the site.  but, they claim that even remnatns of noahs vineyard and house were there.  also several boat anchors (just odd to see them up so high).

thal , you are scared of truth.  the truth is exactly what is written in the bible.

Oh, all of a sudden it is completely disintegrated, how convenient. It is also not on Mt Ararat (or at least not the one in my picture).

The Turkish Government don't like people sniffing around the site since a bunch of scientists found it was mainly basalt and previous findings of wood, nails and planks was found to be the warped hopes of tambo banging morons. In addition, the anchors you refer to are used to tether yaks and probably always have been.

It is YOU that is scared of the truth, not me. One day you will realise that the ridiculous book of Bronze Age myths have been controlling you all of your life is mostly nonsense. Then hopefully, you will see that your warped, uneducated and blinkered version of the history of the Earth is soo far off as to be laughable.

I am so glad that the education system of England is now no longer able to force feed its children some of the rubbish that is contained in the Bible, so they can seek the real truth of science and learning.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

it is fact. 

Only for the feeble minded and those which don't (or don't wish to) open their eyes.

Thal

[fiddes]

You lot can be quite nasty cant you!!!!

everyone should be allowed there own opinion, be it right or wrong noi-one should be ridiculed for what they beleive in. At the very least the lives that have been changed due to religion should at least warrent it a little respect.

[shortyshort]

At the very least the lives that have been changed due to religion should at least warrent it a little respect.

Yes, millions of people have been tortured and killed in the name of religion. Their lives were changed a bit.

[fiddes]

millions of people have been killed through misinterpretation of religion, on a whole they are used to give people meaning

btw war is a way of life if they hadnt died for religion they would have for another reason

[shortyshort]

millions of people have been killed through misinterpretation of religion, on a whole they are used to give people meaning

btw war is a way of life if they hadnt died for religion they would have for another reason

Are you pianistimos child? Your argument is similarly flawed.

So are you admiting that religion has killed many people?

The people who died for religion may have died of old age.

[pianistimo]

agreed.  thank you, fiddes!

i know i have some personal theories that just make my daughter laugh.  for instance, i tell her that being a real estate agent might not be the safest job.  she says 'why.'  then, i say - well, you just don't know the people that you might be showing houses to.  what if they have tatoos and are in a motorcycle gang.  she says - who cares.  they just want to see a house.  perhaps i am just a tiny bit phobic.  anyways - there are theories and there are theories.  some are worse than others.  she says that i should get over 'fear of tatoos' and move on to something more substantial.  she's only 12.  so, you see - i get told off by my own children.  it doesn't bother me anymore.

ok. for shorty short.  give a cussing cowboy a gun and christian a gun.  ask them to walk ten paces.  the christian will run off and the cowboy will turn around and be left alone.  to fight with himself.  also, christians are WAYYY smarter than most people (this is my theory).  that is because they save a lot of time from arguing and fighting.  they just give people mostly what they want - and are patient. have you ever seen a christian cut you off in traffic.  no, they usually give you whatever place you want and smile.  does this start a war?

as i see it - they recognize the wisdom from God to Christ - who spoke the words of the parables and many other words.  they listen and learn quickly.  so, in the end, who wins.  the person who died first or the person who is ressurrected first?

[shortyshort]

what if they have tatoos and are in a motorcycle gang. 

Hi Susan

That's a bit of a generalisation.

What if they're an American Jesus freak???

[pianistimo]

just between you and me - shhh - i'll take the tatooed motorcycle guy.  sorry to be so confusing - but, occasionally we need someone to shake us out of complacency.  and, who wants to convert someone who's already converted.  plus - it's apt to be a bet between who can be the nicest to the other. and that gets old after a while.  having someone sock you in the nose can actually help sometimes.

[fiddes]

"The people who died for reigion may have died of old age."

see that is a flawed argument how can someone die of old age and die for religion,

if they died of old age then they lived a full life and it was there time to go, they didnt die becuase of religon

[shortyshort]

"The people who died for religion may have died of old age."

see that is a flawed argument how can someone die of old age and die for religion,

if they died of old age then they lived a full life and it was there time to go, they didnt die becuase of religon

Let me clarify. If they had not died from religion, they may have lived a nice long life. Not died for some other reason as you suggested

just between you and me - shhh - i'll take the tatooed motorcycle guy. sorry to be so confusing - but, occasionally we need someone to shake us out of complacency. and, who wants to convert someone who's already converted. plus - it's apt to be a bet between who can be the nicest to the other. and that gets old after a while. having someone sock you in the nose can actually help sometimes.

lol.

[pianistimo]

i've never seen a death certificate 'died of religion.'  although that would be lol too.

[wishful thinker]

I know we've been here several times before, but here goes 

Someone mentioned "misinterpretation".  Consider this:

The words of the original text [of Genesis], rendered "earth" in our version, signify "land" as well as "earth"; in fact, "land" appears to have been their primary meaning, and this meaning fits in admirably with Gen., iv, v, and Gen., x; why not adhere to this meaning also in Gen., vi-ix, or the Flood story. Why not read, the waters "filled all on the face of the land", "all flesh was destroyed that moved in the land", "all things wherein there is the breath of life in the land died", "all the high mountains under the whole heaven (corresponding to the land) were covered"? The primary meaning of the inspired text urges therefore a universality of the flood covering the whole land or region in which Noah lived, but not the whole earth.

A localised flood makes much more sense, and does away with the grand canyon, amount of water required and number of animals species etc problems.

[shortyshort]

i've never seen a death certificate 'died of religion.'  although that would be lol too.

I've never seen a death certificate.

I've also never seen any legal documentation that says "saved by Jesus"

[shortyshort]

The primary meaning of the inspired text urges therefore a universality of the flood covering the whole land or region in which Noah lived, but not the whole earth.

A localised flood makes much more sense, and does away with the grand canyon, amount of water required and number of animals species etc problems.

Agreed

[fiddes]

well c now there is the problem a dead person cannot tell us how he died a live person can tell us what made him/her change their life for the better

[fiddes]

btw to straighten it out a little i do not hold to one religion,

i see my life through my eyes as everyone lese see's thiers through theres (english is a complicated language)

[shortyshort]

btw to straighten it out a little i do not hold to one religion,

i see my life through my eyes as everyone lese see's thiers through theres (english is a complicated language)

Nor do I.

And your English is very good

[prometheus]

Agreed

It also does away with the divine purpose of the flood, to kill all humans because their were evil.

[fiddes]

It should be i have been using it all my life lol, it is difficult though when your friends speak a different veriation to you (text slang - the worlds gift to the lazy)

[shortyshort]

It also does away with the divine purpose of the flood, to kill all humans because their were evil.

Agreed. Are we all allowed to keep agreeing  

[fiddes]

im not sure it sort of negates the idea of a debate when everyone is in agreement lol

[wishful thinker]

I think we've all gone off topic    Now what was the topic...oh yes....oh no