Quo

What effects would olive oil have on brass over the course of 500 years? Would the brass be in the same condition? Better, Worse?

Hypothetically, if I was a European man in the year 1500 and I wanted to preserve something that was mechanically complex (let's say a car engine), what would be the best solution with the technology available to me?

I ask this because I am writing a short story that needs to be internally consistent.

One of my ideas is sealing the car-engine inside a barrel of olive oil and burying it underground. Would this work? Or would it cause problems? Are there other/better solutions?

Thanks.

Would a runner up team fill in or what?

Pick the letter which describes your opinion best.

A- I have a literal interpretation of scripture. Everything in the Bible took place in history.

B- Almost everything took place as it was written, except I believe the creation is metaphorical or took place over millions of years.

C- Genesis 1-11 probably didn't happen, however the rest of it actually happened.

D- Genesis 1-11 is BS, and the rest of it happened. However superstitious people falsely accredited events to God. Jesus existed, but he was just merely a teacher. He didn't perform miracles or actually resurrect.

E- Everything up to King Saul/David is BS. For everything afterward, only bits and pieces are true, anything accredited to God is a joke. Jesus never existed, the New Testament writers construed a story of a righteous man from their imagination.

F- The only way the Bible is situated in history is that the locations it mentions exist today.

G- Everything in it is a complete and utter lie.

You may pick multiple letters and/or provide your own opinion if you feel the descriptions listed above don't adequately describe what you believe.

Proverbs 3:5 says, "Trust in the Lord with all your heart, And lean not on your own understanding"

Why are Christians advised not to rely completely on their own understanding when seeking after God?

Hypothetically, lets say you had no prior knowledge of any of the current models for abiogenesis.

If someone asked you, "I believe God created life, what say you?" Would you be able to give them a rational explanation of how biological life arose from inorganic matter through natural processes?

How would you respond without resorting to a supernatural cause?

I was researching the age of the Grand Canyon, so first I came across this article:

http://www.grandcanyontreks.org/geology2.htm

It says radiocarbon dating was used in the early 1900's to date the Grand Canyon to around 70 mya, but over the course of 50 years the estimate dwindled down to 5.5 mya.

Then I came across a study down in 2002: http://uanews.org/node/6656

This study reveals that the Grand Canyon is not 5.5 mya but, 600-700 kya.

I also found a this 2007 40Ar-39Ar radiometric dating study: http://bulletin.geoscienceworld.org/content/119/11...

The study here says the canyon is less than 700 kya and could possibly be 100 kya.

So at this point I thought repeated radiocarbon tests we're showing a younger and younger Grand Canyon, but then I found this U-Th 2008 study: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/08041...

So now the age of the Grand Canyon is 55+ mya, huh?

Finally, I found this article of another 2008 study: http://www.livescience.com/2355-grand-canyon-older...

This study says the Grand Canyon is 16-17 mya, which is the position Wikipedia supports http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_canyon

If radiocarbon dating is so accurate, then why can't scientists simply agree on the age of the Grand Canyon? Estimates for the age of the Grand Canyon seem to alternate being either extremely young or old every couple years.

I wouldn't think the dating would be a big deal if the numbers were just a little bit different, but they aren't. They are orders of magnitude different! And the majority of these datings were performed in the last decade! I could do a better job of estimating the age just by looking at pictures!

Goodness, why should I believe fossils being millions of years old when science can't even confirm if a measly rock is 100 kya or 70 mya?

Can someone please explain to me whats going on here? Should I just take for granted that the most recent study is the correct age for the Grand Canyon?, that's what Wikipedia seems to do. At the moment, religious accounts on the age of the earth seem to be more coherent than this mess.

Charles H. Townes, Nobel Prize in Physics- "Intelligent design, as one sees it from a scientific point of view, seems to be quite real. This is a very special universe: it's remarkable that it came out just this way. If the laws of physics weren't just the way they are, we couldn't be here at all."

Eugene P. Wigner, Nobel Prize in Physics- "The National Academy of Sciences has stated in their work, Science and Creationism, that 'the hypothesis of special creation has, over nearly two centuries, been repeatedly and sympathetically considered and rejected on evidential grounds by qualified observers and experimentalists.' In the forms given in the first two chapters of Genesis, it is now an invalidated hypothesis."

Richard E Smalley, Nobel Prize in Chemistry- "Evolution has just been dealt its death blow. After reading Origins of Life, with my background in chemistry and physics, it is clear evolution could not have occurred."

If evolution is based on minor beneficial mutations that very slowly amass over very long periods of time, then how come all the destructive mutations the human race has accumulated over hundreds of thousands of years hasn't turned us into disfigured creatures unable to maintain a population?

Note: Most researchers use a beneficial to detrimental mutation ratio of 1:1000. That means on average, 1000 detrimental mutations will accumulate before one single beneficial mutation occurs.

Oh wait, that's a bad analogy isn't it? My sincerest apologies for being uneducated and unoriginal.

Here's a better analogy:

What are the chances of gradually creating a Boeing 747 over time if I unintentionally threw grenades into a junkyard with my eyes closed?

Notes:

I'm mindlessly throwing grenades into the junkyard, I don't have any predetermined goal. However the junkyard owner thinks I have a goal and he tries to help me out, but he doesn't know what the goal is either.

Unfortunately his help is rather limited because he has arbitrary rules placed on himself which determine what he may do with my created objects, that is if I happen to create a functional object in the first place.

•If I happen to create an object which functions neutrally, the junkyard owner will leave it alone.

•If I happen to create a functional object which the junkyard owner determines to be harmful, the junkyard owner is required to dispose the object from his junkyard.

•If I happen to create a functional object which the junkyard owner determines to be beneficial, the junkyard owner may place the object in a spot of the junkyard which he thinks will collect more shrapnel and/or debris from my grenade explosions.

•If I happen to create another functional object which the junkyard owner determines to be beneficial, the junkyard owner is required to compare the two objects, and based on his discretion disposes the inferior object from his junkyard.

As you can see the junkyard owner isn't being rather progressive in helping me create a Boeing 747. Of course I don't know that I'm supposed to be creating a Boeing 747, and neither does the junkyard owner, I'm just a grenade enthusiast with a tendency to create more harm than good out of this whole fiasco.

So with the dysfunctional junkyard owner included, what are the chances of me being able to create a Boeing 747?

"Thou shalt not kill." -Exodus 20:13

So the reality of not killing people is a fairy tale?

Well gee, I can definitely put my kitchen knife collection to good use now!

In fact, I think everyone should kill each other on a regular basis to make sure none of us are living in this fairy tale. Not only will we escape religious delusion, but we'll speed up the process of natural selection while we're at it!

And after we're through with this, does anyone think we should start escaping the fairy tale of Exodus 20:14?

If our hope in Christ is only for this life, we are more to be pitied than anyone in the world. -1 Cor. 15:19 NLT

On this day 1,980 years ago, Jesus resurrected from the dead.

As such, I place my hope in the promise of life to come rather than the life I live.

Do you have hope in this life? If so, what do you place it upon?

Hypothetically, a man stubs his toe entering the shower one morning.

There is no evidence of the event other than his personal testament to the incident. Can he rationally reason if he has stubbed his toe?

Or would he be hallucinating?

Hypothetically, another man testifies he has witnessed the Holy Spirit.

There is no evidence of the event other than his personal testament to the incident.

Can he rationally reason if he has witnessed the Holy Spirit?

Or would he be hallucinating?

Is it scientific to analyze first-person knowledge of experiences?

If not, is it scientific to complain that it has to be scientific?

And for those of you who are unable to answer without committing non sequiturs,

ad hominems or attacking a straw man, let me rephrase the question this way:

Among all the illogical garbage Christian freaks use to brainwash themselves into thinking their religion is true, which deceptive excuse made you ponder slightly longer than usual before you refuted it?

21°25'10'' S

140°11'45'' W

I'm sailing in a ship off the coast of Tematangi Atoll, at the moment it's 12,450 miles west to Mecca and 12,450 miles east to Mecca.

Which way should I face if I decide to pray towards Mecca? I don't want to upset Allah.

Can you prove the statement above is true by empirical methods?

If not, why does one require empirical evidence in order to believe God is true?

about how Christianity has been the driving force of abolishing slavery, freeing opposed women, helping the poor, influenced the scientists who have laid down the principles of science, and established democracy they act much like this machine?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z86V_ICUCD4

Why can't there be a God who intends science to be tested successfully?

Why must atheists assume God does not exist when science is being performed?

If there is a God who does not desire to interfere with science, then why is science made irrational by the idea of God?

I believe God does miracles, yes; but honestly, how much damage does Christ's resurrection do to the scientific enterprise? Other than bursting the pride of the atheists who believe science is the answer to all phenomena.