<< Furthermore, the chance that supernatural beings exist is 0%, while the chance that alien civilizations exist is hovering around 90%. >>
<< Then, since we've no way to predict the possibility that supernatural beings exist and we've no reason to believe that it's more than a figment of the imagination, the chance on this being the case is 0%. >>
Hmmm.... ok.... according to what you've stated, if I tell you that I have something in my hand that you cannot conceive of, and if you have no evidence to the contrary, then automatically the thing that I say I have in my hand cannot exist? 0% chance of its existance based on the fact that you can't conceive of it existing. That's a rather mighty ego you have going! I'm glad you can conceive of this BBS, or we wouldn't be able to post here.
<< The chance that alien life exists is at this moment 100%. >>
I like that! You believe in something being 100%. That's the right track! You believe in an absolute.... just start carrying it a little farther and you'll conceive that God IS.
<< Point is that the belief in something for which no evidence in any form of shape can be found is mere superstition and therefore highly illogical. I hope that even you are capable of comprehending this.  >>
MAN... you do have quite an impressive ego! I guess you statement means that TONS of "scientific" theories have to be considered superstition because there wasn't (or isn't) any form of shape, eh? Pardon, could you please post a graphic of an authentic quantum string? How about a quick snapshot of an alternate universe? NO? Hmmm... ok.... how about just a single example of extraterrestrial life... any life.... a virus.... something even lower, I dont' care... ANYTHING! If you can't show "evidence in any form of shape", I guess you are admitting to being full of superstitions "and therefore highly illogical".
Dedpuhl,
Good post. Good research. You are, of course, correct about the Old Testement's view toward the legalities of slavery. I stand corrected. As for the New Testement and the convenant between God and His people, the subject of slavery is only spoken about with regard to CHRISTIANS who are slaves and how those CHRISTIANS should behave. Come to think of it... there may be a verse or two about masters and their treatment of slaves, but I can't bring them to mind at the moment.
Regarding Galileo, have you ever looked at what ANY scientist can go through with new discovery? Look at the life of Lious Pasteur... for decades, the MEDICAL AND SCIENTIFIC communities ridiculed him and scoffed at his ideas.... almost all of which were right! If those same men had been in positions of extreme power (such as the Catholic church way back when), they may have even imprisoned him or worse... we'll never know. Point is, it's not just Theists who mistreat those with new and different ideas. Another point is that the appology about Galileo was from the governing body of the Roman Catholic church. Your statement makes it look like it took the average Christian that long to know what was right and wrong. That's like blaming the average Chinese peasant for being in a Communist country.
About the cubits, could you tell me the measuring device the author was using when he measured the vessel? It would appear that it was written down from measurement and not calculation. Do you leave any room at all for something, which is reported as ancient historical text, to be very close but not absolute? If you watched the news, you would see that that World Trade Center towers were both an identical 110 Stories. But Tower 1 was 1,368 feet tall and tower two was 1,372 feet tall.... that's a four foot difference, but I've not once heard on the news that one was 110 Stories and the other was 110.3216374269005847953216374269 stories tall. Not even have I heard 110.3216, or even 110.3! For most people who aren't in the building trade and need absolutely exact construction details, 110 stories each is considered close enough. As it is with the basin in question.
Something that could actually further your argument, but I hold out as curiosity, is that we don't know what is meant by brim. How thick were the walls of the vessel? It could have been 10 cubits from inner edge to inner edge. Add in wall thickness and perhaps the measurement could have been 10.25 or 10.5 cubits. If this were so, trying to calculate pi from this would give us an even smaller value.
There is even more conjecture one could make. Was the vessel cylindrical or conical? At what height was the measurement taken? If it were even SLIGHTLY conical and the measurement was taken beneath that absolute top edge, then the 30 could be correct and accurate! We just don't know!
Joe