# Idiotic Creationist post... **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 20, 2001, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiotic-creationist-post/77127 "2001-08-20T13:41:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Robb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a183cd/32.png) [@Robb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robb)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2001, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiotic-creationist-post/77127/81 "2001-08-30T14:45:16Z")
Recently, I was having a spot of tea with an old friend of mine, Chuck. You might know him as Charles. He was telling me about this old school bet he had with some chums, something about who could tell the biggest lie, fool the most people, that sort of thing. So, whenever I read a debate by evolutionists, I just chuckle, because Charles Darwin himself told me evolution wasn’t true. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2001, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiotic-creationist-post/77127/82 "2001-08-30T17:13:54Z")
What i’d like to know is why creationists always place the burden of proof on evolutionists? Admittedly, it would be nice to have absolute proof of everything, but at least those who adhere to the theory of evolution are generally honest enough to concede that it is just that - a theory that requires constant investigation, analysis and revision. Creationists, on the other hand, spend so much time chasing imaginary flaws in the evolutionary argument that they never even attempt to prove their creationist arguments. And evolutionists spend so much time defending themselves against the trumped-up charges of creationists that no-one ever thinks to ask creationists for their proof regarding the creation of the universe. Of course, it’s all just too easy to be a creationist. If you ask them how the earth came to be, you are told that God created it. If you ask them how they know this, they tell you that it’s in the Bible. If you ask them how they know that what the Bible says is true, they tell you that it is the word of God, so it must be. And if you ask how they know there’s a God in the first place, you are again referred to the Bible as proof. A lovely circular argument, in which proof for the existence of God is claimed to rest in something that God is claimed to have written. I realise that belief in God requires faith, and fully support the right of people to have such faith. But i just wish that they would concede that faith is exactly what it is, and not confuse it with rational and logical argument. The only long-term satisfaction an evolutionist can gain from this is that, as surely as creationists “know” they are going to heaven, i know that i (and they) will just be dead and that our organic matter will be dispersed about the biosphere. And that’s it, nothing else. ---
**Author:** ![Ben](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/df788c/32.png) [@Ben](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ben)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2001, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiotic-creationist-post/77127/83 "2001-08-30T17:37:11Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by IGOTTHEANSWERS \* > \*\*Wernher von Braun- leading scientist in US space program > Kelvin -Temperature > Einstein-relativity > Sir isaac newton-gravity thermodynamics > Russel humpreys- star light and time \*\* “But then I read all the great thinkers- Marx, Lenin, L. Ron Hubbard…” Anyway, who can believe for one moment that Einstein was a creationist? -Ben ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2001, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiotic-creationist-post/77127/84 "2001-08-30T18:18:16Z")
> [@](#): > > **Ben wrote:** > > “But then I read all the great thinkers - Marx, Lenin, L. Ron Hubbard…” Was this meant to be ironic? That’s how it sounded to me. If that’s the case, then maybe you _should_ read Marx; you would find that he really was a great thinker. I’m not a Marxist, and you don’t need to spend any time demonstrating to me that many of Marx’s predictions about the development of capitalism have not been borne out by subesquent circumstances. But to simply dismiss him as a result is to fail to appreciate the level of investigation and analysis that went into his writing. If your post was ironic in the sense that you haven’t read him at all, then maybe you should restrict your sarcasm to authors about which you have some knowledge. On the other hand, if i misinterpeted and your sentence was **not** ironic, then i apologise. But if that was the case, then L. Ron Hubbard…? ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2001, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiotic-creationist-post/77127/85 "2001-08-30T18:53:31Z")
Libertarian wrote: > [@](#): > > **Tracer** > > > [@](#): > > > > According to the NIV translation of 2 Chronicles 4:2, the vessel was “circular in shape” > > An ellipsis may be defined as an oblique projection of a circle. Let me ask you, of all the things in your life that you have described narratively as “circular”, how many of them were _perfectly_ circular? Well, looks like you won this round, Lib. I looked up 2 Chrinicles 4:2 in an on-line Interlinear Old Testament. The Hebrew word translated as “circular” in this NIV passage is `agol, which literally means “round.” The vessel could indeed have been “round” without being “circular.” Perhaps King Solomon wanted his bathtub a little longer than it was wide. **However** , I do feel a need to point out the following: 2 Chronicles 4:5 says that the vessel’s inner volume was “three thousand baths.” (One bath was a specific, well-defined, official unit of volume in Old Testament times, equal to about 5-and-5/6 gallons.) 1 Kings 7:26, which describes the **exact same** vessel, says that its inner volume was “two thousand baths.” Hmmm… ---
**Author:** ![Ben](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/df788c/32.png) [@Ben](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ben)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2001, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiotic-creationist-post/77127/86 "2001-08-30T18:54:56Z")
It’s a quote from the movie “Top Secret.” I was responding to IGOTTHEANSWERS’s list of great minds who were creationists: Newton, Einstein, and… Russell Humphreys? -Ben ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2001, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiotic-creationist-post/77127/87 "2001-08-30T19:01:33Z")
(Incidentally, if the vessel were perfectly hemispherical and 10 cubits in diameter, its volume would be a little over 13,000 gallons, or around 2300 baths.) ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2001, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiotic-creationist-post/77127/88 "2001-08-30T19:23:58Z")
My apologies; i didn’t catch the popular cultural reference. ---
**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2001, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiotic-creationist-post/77127/89 "2001-08-30T19:30:35Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by IGOTTHEANSWERS \* > **Darwins finch > to your responses > 1 Yes evolutionists do “deal” with how DNA came into being. It may not come up much because it only works against them in debates. Can’t have humans without it. And humans are here. Their way of getting is a whole lot more complicated and only works on guessing and fantasy whereas creation is simple and obvious. Check the laws of thermodynamics.** Might I suggest you actually _read_ a book or two about evolution? Evolutionists _don’t_ deal with how DNA came into being. That it exists is sufficient; regardless _how_ it got here, evolutionists deal with how it _changes_, and what effects those changes have on the organisms to which it belongs. If you want to talk DNA Origins, go see “Biology, Molecular”. It’s down the hall, first door on the left. \*\* > [@](#): > > 2 Apparently you haven’t read enough evoultionary books, other than your high school biology book because he named dropped a dozen evolutionary scientists that he worked closely with.\*\* You cite _name dropping_ as evidence that he’s a major player in the science of evolution?! Well, here’re some other names for you, none of which mention mr. Clarke: Michael Benton, Robert L. Carroll, Steven J. Gould, Douglas Futuyma, James W. Valentine, Steve Jones, David M. Raup, Steven M. Stanley, Niles Eldredge, Joel Cracraft, and Jacques Gauthier, just to name relatively few. Perhaps you should wander over to the “Science” section of the bookstore, rather than the “Science _Fiction_” section \*\* > [@](#): > > 3 Evolutionists have eliminated all ideas of God IN THE PAST. You’re definitely out of touch with the new evolutionary thinking. Can’t get around tendency of things to break down therefore new evolutionary thought is a “god-like creature” put highly developed DNA material in early earth. You need to keep up with new evolutionary ideas. Their ideas change more than I change my underwear. Funny creation truth has always stayed the same. Unlike evolutionists.\*\* Yeah, those scientists are a wacky bunch - always modifying their ideas when new evidence presents itself, coming up with new thoeries to better explain the evidence. What a bunch of dopes, huh? Not like those creationists, who are so firmly convinvced of their own truth that nothing could possibly convince them otherwise. The ability to ignore evidence and stick to the same old dogma is not the sign of a great thinker, nor the sign of a seeker of “truth”. \*\* > [@](#): > > You want science. Go to Institute for creation research web or answers in genesis web page. I don’t know what century you’re living in but the creationists are the only ones making ground breaking scientific work in botany, astronomy, physiology, etc. Then again I know you won’t because you wouldn’t want your house of cards of belief in evolution to crumble. \*\* Been there. Done that. Can you say “lies”? How about “blatant lies”? How about even “soul-searing, sufficient-to-damn-one’s-eternal-soul-to-the-fiery-pits-of-Hell lies”? Personally, I’m living in the 21st century. Creationists are still living in, what, 4000 B.C.? ---
**Author:** ![ultrafilter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/3d9bf3/32.png) [@ultrafilter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ultrafilter)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2001, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiotic-creationist-post/77127/90 "2001-08-30T19:33:17Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ultrafilter \* > **Atheism has never been a central tenet of evolution. Vestigial organs, embryo recapitulation, geological column dating, and the evolutionary tree are all details of the theory. The central idea is that all organisms derive from a common ancestor by means of random variation and natural selection. This has not changed.** See [this page](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html). > [@](#): > > **Evolutionists refuse to debate with creationists because creationists are known to stack the odds in their favor, and have not been above lying from time to time. Still, some debates do occur, and scientists have won.** For a large number of debates, see [this page](http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-debates.html). ---
**Author:** ![jab1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee7513/32.png) [@jab1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jab1)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2001, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiotic-creationist-post/77127/91 "2001-08-30T20:20:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Libertarian \* > **Assuming for the sake of argument that earth is in the real world** :rolleyes: Only **Lib** would even consider the possibility that the Earth doesn’t really exist. > [@](#): > > \*\*there is nary a straight line to be found anywhere in, on, or around it. \*\* And I suppose the ball-point pen I used this morning isn’t really straight? Or the desk upon which this computer sits isn’t really flat? A ruler isn’t straight? A sheet of paper isn’t flat? ---
**Author:** ![ultrafilter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/3d9bf3/32.png) [@ultrafilter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ultrafilter)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2001, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiotic-creationist-post/77127/92 "2001-08-30T20:43:27Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jab1 \* > \*\*And I suppose the ball-point pen I used this morning isn’t really straight? Or the desk upon which this computer sits isn’t really flat? > > A ruler isn’t straight? A sheet of paper isn’t flat? \*\* Yes, these are all flat. What **Lib** was talking about was the surface of the earth. If you have a line over 600 feet, you can’t measure its distance without taking into account the curvature of the earth. ---
**Author:** ![scotth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b9e5f3/32.png) [@scotth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scotth)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2001, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiotic-creationist-post/77127/93 "2001-08-30T20:43:43Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by IGOTTHEANSWERS \* > **Shes got it right and wrong. The earth is only 6 thousand years old. And God created it in 6 literal days.** Hmmm… I don’t even think ANY of the major churchs (non fundementalists) even try to make that claim anymore. The evidence that this is not true is so overwhelming that it isn’t worth arguing. > [@](#): > > \*\*I noticed some postings talking about odds. What evolutionists don’t tell you that its not 1 chance in millions and millions of billions that life came about but actually when that 1 chance happens then theres a next step which is another 1 chance in millions and millions of billions. And all the next steps which run in the millions after that have the same odds. Which means zero. So the person that said “its not impossible” is wrong. Those odds are impossible. If you want odds that God created life? Its 1 out of 2. What odds do you want? \*\* Clearly with your understanding of the odds and statistics, exactly the same odds exist for evolution… 1 out of 2. Obviously the 1 out of 2 that wouldn’t be God would be evolution. But, just because there are two choices in your mind, doesn’t mean they equally likely. Essentially nothing meaningful in that entire section. > [@](#): > > **Second point, most evolutionists know that DNA just doesn’t create itself so the new evolutionary thinking is that “a god-like” being put advanced DNA into the primordially slude of earth and the destructive power of the earth widled down the DNA to what we find in us low lifes of bad DNA.** I would ask you to cite ANY serious reference to the above by any mainstream scientist. Some things of interest though: 1. Evolution does not even discuss the question of where the original piece of life came from. That would be biogenesis… but if we must discuss that… 2. Throwing a bunch of chemicals in a container that match the best estimates of the early earth atmosphere and adding a source of energy will yield a stew of complex organic chemicals (including many amino acids) in a fairly short time. (You can even try this for yourself, if you have the urge) 3. biogenesis typically posits that life probably didn’t even start are life as we know it. It seems more likely that it started as bunches of self replicating molecules. Then following normal evolutionary principals, these molecules became more complex and better and using the local resources to replicate (pushing out less effient molecules). It is quite conceivable that one became complex enough to meet our current definitions of life. And most importantly, even the guys who are “experts” in this field have no real way to calculate the odds of it happening. One of two things need to happen first. 1. They need to succeed in creating some type of primitive life in a sealed environment (if they succeed in this, life arising sponteneously is likely indeed. If life can arise in a suitable but very small environment in a few years, it must be much easier when you have millions of years and the whole earth the run the experiment on) 2. Do a real survey of a fairly large number of other worlds that have similar properties as earth and see how many have life of any kind. > [@](#): > > \*\*I discussed this with Arthur C. Clarke who is large in the evolutionists ranks. They are coming just short of now saying that God must have put us here because evolution doesn’t happen but the won’t admit to the God of the Bible. The evolutionists don’t like making this known because its another OOPs in the long lists of guesses they been making about our origin. \*\* Who says A.C Clarke is large in the evolutionist ranks? And the factual state of affairs in the evolution theory says that it is as certain as one can be about anything that evolution has in fact happened and is still happening. The only squabbles are about the details. The fossil record is so completely clear on one detail. The further you go back, on average the less advanced the life you find. As to still happening, the whole mess with Antibiotic resistant pathogens is pure evolution in action. ---
**Author:** ![jab1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee7513/32.png) [@jab1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jab1)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2001, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiotic-creationist-post/77127/94 "2001-08-30T20:45:30Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by IGOTTHEANSWERS \* > **The Bible describes a “brim” around the container. There’s your .14 to make your PI. If thats the only drivel you can find in the Bible then its still superior to the ever changing guessing going on with the evolutionists.** Another person who believes the Bible is superior to science because science never has “the final answer.” I’ve encountered so many creationists who say the Bible is superior to anything Man has written because “it never changes”. Well, _Moby Dick_ hasn’t changed since it was published either. > [@](#): > > **Yes evolutionists do “deal” with how DNA came into being. Can’t have humans without it.** We haven’t found ANY terrestrial life-form without DNA. What’s your point? > [@](#): > > **Check the laws of thermodynamics.** Are you arguing that evolution violates the laws of thermodynamics? Explain how. > [@](#): > > **Then is not one substantiated case of a human link to monkeys.** Please explain the fact that human DNA and chimpanzee DNA is more than 97% alike. > [@](#): > > **Look it up they’ve all been hoaxes lies or actual monkeys.** Hoaxes cannot falsify theories. > [@](#): > > **Go to Institute for creation research web or answers in genesis web page.** Been there, done that, did NOT buy the t-shirt. > [@](#): > > **I don’t know what century you’re living in** The 21st. You seem to be living in the 13th. ---
**Author:** ![jab1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee7513/32.png) [@jab1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jab1)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2001, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiotic-creationist-post/77127/95 "2001-08-30T20:56:40Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ultrafilter \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by jab1 \* > > \*\*And I suppose the ball-point pen I used this morning isn’t really straight? Or the desk upon which this computer sits isn’t really flat? > > > > A ruler isn’t straight? A sheet of paper isn’t flat? \*\* > > Yes, these are all flat. What **Lib** was talking about was the surface of the earth. If you have a line over 600 feet, you can’t measure its distance without taking into account the curvature of the earth. \*\* I asked how you build something (like a cistern made of gold) in the shape of a non-Euclidian circle and **Lib** comes back with the observation that the Earth’s surface isn’t flat. What **Lib** did is called a _non-sequitur_. He avoided my question and he does this with aggravating frequency. ---
**Author:** ![IGOTTHEANSWERS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/71c47a/32.png) [@IGOTTHEANSWERS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IGOTTHEANSWERS)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2001, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiotic-creationist-post/77127/96 "2001-08-30T21:14:09Z")
1 “that dna exists is sufficient”?!? To whom?? You can’t sweep it under a rug. We say that because God exists it’s sufficient but we can back it up with proof. 2 I see you name drop a bunch of names heres Gould “Instead of changing gradually as one generation shades into the next, evolution proceeds in discreet leaps” Newsweek 29, 1982 So even your stephen J Gould is opposite of Darwin. He believes creatures just popped out brand new kinds rather than the slow changing evolutionists have been pushing for years. 3 Yes evolutionists do continue to change their ideas. Those dopes. Try to find 2 evolutionists to agree on anything. Slow evolution, instant evolution as in Gould. Or CLarke who says a god-like being put us here??? Looks like “truth” is what God said it was. His creation. 4 1+1 will always equal 2. They knew this in 4000BC. Quess what? it still holds true for today. So time has NOTHING TO DO WITH TRUTH! Two final notes One Creationists and evolutionists both use the SAME facts. Evolutionists interpret the facts differently. So evolutionists do not have facts, they only have their interpretation of it. Heres facts 1comets have a life span of 10,000-100,000 years old. Why are they still around!!! 2 helium fills into earths atmosphere daily it would only take 2 million years to get trace amount we have in atmosphere today 3 earth would erode into ocean in only 15 million years 4 our present population would have developed from a single family in just 4 thousand years. measure data indicating age of earth maximums: 1 influx of radiocarbon into earth system 5000-10000 yr max 2 influx of nickel to the ocean via river 9000 yr max 3 decay of C-14 in pre cabrian wood 4000yr max 4 accumulation of peat in peat bogs 8000 yr max These are facts and evolutionists agree with these facts. Their interpretation is where things get zanny part 2 of final thought The quantity of people believing in evolution has nothing to do with truth. God sai d way was narrow. Romans 1 18-22 " For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; because that which may be known of God is manifest in them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world ARE CLEARLY SEEN, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools." ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2001, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiotic-creationist-post/77127/97 "2001-08-30T21:30:27Z")
I notice that this debate is your first on the Straight Dope Message Boards. I can’t claim to speak for everyone around here, but when i get involved in a **debate** , i find it much more productive when those with whom i am debating are willing to provide some evidence to back up their argument, rather than simply repeating the same unsubstantiated assertions time after time. What you say in this thread may have some truth to it, but why should people accept **you** alone as the authority? You have yet to provide a link to another website that supports your claims. Nor have you provided the titles of any books that people might look at in order to learn more about the points of view that you put forward. Despite the fact that we Dopers probably spend far too much time in front of our computers, evidence does indicate that many of us are willing to make a trip to the library every now and again. Of course, you’re fully within your rights to say whatever you want without any evidence whatsoever - i can’t stop you, nor would i want to - but you might find that if you continue to mistake baldface opinions for informed debate then people will become tired of arguing and will just ignore you. ---
**Author:** ![Mars\_Horizon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mars_horizon/32/2804_2.png) [@Mars\_Horizon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mars_Horizon)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2001, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiotic-creationist-post/77127/98 "2001-08-30T21:33:06Z")
I’m sorry, but in “Great Debates” an argument replete with spelling and grammar errors that concludes with a Biblequote, is not very compelling. For a more persuasive argument for theism, and a frankly, to get an image of a God _worthy of belief_, look at **Polycarp’s** posts. You would do well to model his approach if your goal is to persuade. As it is, I am afraid you will only bring more well deserved derision upon your arguments if you continue on your current path. Hoping for the best but prepared for the worst, MH ---
**Author:** ![Mars\_Horizon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mars_horizon/32/2804_2.png) [@Mars\_Horizon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mars_Horizon)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2001, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiotic-creationist-post/77127/99 "2001-08-30T21:37:03Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mars Horizon \* > **and a frankly** Is it Gaudere’s Law that I just fulfilled? The one that states that any post correcting a spelling or grammar error will itself contain a spelling or grammar error? ::sigh:: ---
**Author:** ![IGOTTHEANSWERS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/71c47a/32.png) [@IGOTTHEANSWERS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IGOTTHEANSWERS)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2001, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiotic-creationist-post/77127/100 "2001-08-30T21:42:21Z")
Two obvious solutions to this 1 cubit was the length of a mans forearm from the elbow to the extended fingertips. This method does not lend itself to the measuremnet of freactions. Come on people. The measurement around would have been taken either with a measured string or rod. If the actual diameter was 9.65 cubits for exapmle, this would have been reckoned as 10 cubits. The actual circumfrence would have been 30.32 cubits (9.6 cubits diameter gives 30.14 circumference, and so on). The ratio of true circumference to true diameter would have been 30.32 divided by 9.65 = 3.14, the true value for pi, even thought the measured value (i.e. to the nearest cubit) was 30 divided by 10 = 3. 2 verse 26 of 1 Kings 7 says that the vessel in question had a brim which ‘was wrought like the brim of a cup, with flowers of the lilies’ (i.e. the brim or rim turned outward) the diameter was measured ‘from one brim to the other’ the circumference was measured with ‘a line round about’ the formula from that point diameter=circumferece divided by pi =30 cubits divided by 3.14 =9.55 cubits It is abundantly clear that the Bible does not defy geometry with regard to the value of pi, and in particular it does not say that pi equals 3.0!!! Skeptics who allege an inaccuracy are wrong, because they fail to take in account all the data. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiotic-creationist-post/77127.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiotic-creationist-post/77127.md?page=6)