Sinjari

I've tried Googling it, but can't find an original source.

Thank you in advance.

Be nice if you cite your sources, but not necessary.

For example, what if it dumped snow over an area several times per year for a couple years, centuries ago? Than wouldn't you have multiple layers per year?

Is there a website or something I could go to to find out how many times an academic paper was cited?

Was browsing around some Creatard material, and found this:

http://creation.com/does-the-bible-say-pi-equals-3

Let us consider the details given in 1 Kings 7:23 and 2 Chronicles 4:2. These are:

1. The diameter of 10 cubits was measured ‘from brim to brim’ (v. 23), i.e. from the topmost point of the brim on one side to the topmost point of the brim on the other side (points A and B in the diagram).

1. The circumference of 30 cubits was measured with a line, ‘round about’ (v. 23), i.e. the most natural meaning of these words is that they refer to the circumference of the outside of the main body of the tank, measured by a string pulled tightly around the vessel below the brim. It is very obvious that the diameter of the main body of the tank was less than the diameter of the top of the brim. And it is also obvious that the circumference of 30 cubits could have been measured at any point down the vertical sides of the vessel, below the brim. For a measured circumference of 30 cubits, we can calculate what the external diameter of the vessel would have been at that point from the formula:

diameter = circumference ÷ pi

=30 cubits ÷ 3.14

=9.55 cubits.

Thus the external diameter of the vessel at the point where the circumference was measured must have been 9.55 cubits.

Seriously?

http://www.google.ca/imgres?num=10&hl=en&safe=off&...

~Sin

Oh, who are we kidding, of course you didn't.

Before you continue, I have 2 questions: one serious one for Creationists, one more lighthearted one for non-Creationists.

Anyway, an article in the magazine details how a team of scientists provided a calibration for carbon dating accurately to 50,000 years (or about 5-10 times the age the age of the Earth according to many YECs.

The article is fairly hefty, but Science provided a Perspective:

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/338/6105/337

Popular Science puplished an article as well, which can be found:

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-10/how-...

It turns out that the concentration of C14 in the atmosphere varies from year to year, so calculations of the age of a specimen need to be corrected for this yearly variation; uncorrected calculations are not wrong, but they may be in error by hundreds of years. Until now, we have had no detailed record of the C14 concentration beyond the age of the oldest trees. Now, however, a team led by Christopher Bronk Ramsey of the University of Oxford has examined sediments in a Japanese lake and extended carbon dating to approximately 50,000 years. The lake was chosen because the bed of the lake is anoxic and its sediments are thought to have been stable and untouched by ice-age glaciers.

The team also seems to be following up on the research conducted by Hiroyuki Kitagawa in 1998, which found a 40,000 year chronology in varves from Lake Suigetsu, Japan.

https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/radioc...

So, my question for CREATIONSISTS: Can you explain these findings? Without resorting to religious texts or logical fallacies, preferably?

For NON-CREATIONISTS: How do you think YEC authorities will attempt to spin these results? I'm guessing something along the lines of, "Science admits radiometric dating is wrong".

Waiting in anticipation!

~Sin

A sadistic, malevolent, egomaniacal psychopath. Plenty of evil without the Devil.

-Sin

Can you please provide evidence that DIRECTLY VALIDATES CREATIONISM.

Does NOT validate Creationism:

- attempting to refute evolution. Creationism and evolution are not the only two models.

- quoting the Bible/Quran/etc. Religious texts are not scientific, and to reference your scriptures to support your beliefs only entails circular logic.

- claiming that certain scientists or scholars were creationists.

- insulting those who accept evolution as fact.

- arguing that Darwinists have blinded themselves or are biased. By all means, please provide the ground breaking evidence that will change our minds.

Now let's try again, shall we? Evidence that directly lends credence to the Creationist "theory" that either, god created life as we know it in a matter of days, that god played a role in the development of life at all, or that the Earth is only several thousands of years old. Ready set go.

For example, three different specific SINE transpositions have been found in the same chromosomal locations of cetaceans (whales), hippos, and ruminants, all of which are closely related according to the standard phylogenetic tree. However, all other mammals, including camels and pigs, lack these three specific transpositions.

Phylogenics? Ontogeny? Biogeography? Paleontology? Vestiges? Atavisms? Parahomology? Genetics? Anatomical/molecular convergence? Pseudogenes? Retroviruses? Transposons? DNA/protein functional redundancy?

To put in perspective how much of a waste of time this is (as far as an argument against the theory of evolution goes), take a look at the NCSE's "Project Steve":

http://ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve

"Creationists draw up these lists to try to convince the public that evolution is somehow being rejected by scientists, that it is a "theory in crisis." Not everyone realizes that this claim is unfounded. NCSE has been asked numerous times to compile a list of thousands of scientists affirming the validity of the theory of evolution. Although we easily could have done so, we have resisted. We did not wish to mislead the public into thinking that scientific issues are decided by who has the longer list of scientists!

Project Steve pokes fun at this practice and, because "Steves" are only about 1% of scientists, it also makes the point that tens of thousands of scientists support evolution. And it honors the late Stephen Jay Gould, evolutionary biologist, NCSE supporter, and friend."

For the actual list, see here:

http://ncse.com/taking-action/list-steves

Over 1200 "Steves" have signed onto the list -- that far overshadows even the largest list of pro-Creationism scientists *in general* that any Creationist organization (that I know of) has compiled.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/albert-einsteins-god-lett...

"A letter handwritten by physicist Albert Einstein a year before his death, expressing his views on religion, will be sold on eBay this month with an opening bid of $3 million, an auction agency said on Tuesday.

Known as the 'God Letter,' the correspondence offers insights into the private thoughts about religion, God and tribalism of one of the world's most brilliant minds."

...

"'...The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can (for me) change this,' wrote the German-born scientist, who in 1921 was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics."

I want to make a few humorous pics for some friends on Facebook, but a few photos require that their eyes are looking else where. Any tricks I could use?

YECs especially.

NOTE: trying to disprove the theory of evolution or a 4.5 billion y.o. Earth *is not* the same thing as proving Creationism. I'm looking for repeatable, testable evidence that life on Earth was created by a divine "designer", OR evidence that the Earth is 6000 - 10,000 years old.. And hell, if you want to pitch a mechanism or two for divinely inspired floods or catastrophic plate tectonics, go crazy.

Waiting in anticipation.

~Sin

Imagine if every theist in the Middle East suddenly had an epiphany -- that God is imaginary, and holy texts are works of fiction. What do you think would be the immediate, or long-term, aftermath?

(Humour is welcome!)

~Sin