In 1 Sam. the pillars refer to the laws of physics and matter. The earth is said to set upon them because without them it would fall.
The earth's rotation, orbit, and trajectory are stable. It will not be moved from its course.
As for the value of pi, did you even calculate the measurements? When they measured that pit, they did not have rulers or yardsticks. They used their own bodies (elbow to tip of middle finger). A diameter of 10 cubits (r=5) and a circumference of 30 cubits gives a result of 3 for pi. That's pretty darn close considering the measuring tools they had. They were well within their margin of error.
ditinct fossils are found in distinct layers
Again, you are referring to the geologic column, which is based on circular reasoning. Tell me, what are "index fossils"? Nevermind, I won't wait for an answer. They are fossils that are characteristic of a certain time period, right? So if a certain index fossil is found in a rock layer, the rock can be dated as being from the time period that the organism came from.
How do they know how old the organism is? They can tell how old an organism is by the rock layer it came from. Circular? Yes.
You are soon to bring up carbon dating or K-Ar dating as the "proof" of age. Before you do, read my post from an earlier thread on the subject (I will repost the pertinent part of it here):
Let's take one example: carbon dating. I'm sure you're familiar with the concept and the practice, so I'll cut to the chase. Please read this with an open mind. It is hard to set biases aside, but please try.C14 is created in the upper atmosphere. It also decays on earth. Scientists have measured the half-life of C14, and if we assume the earth to be billions of years old, we can assume that the levels of C14 in the earth have reached equilibrium (forming as fast as it decays). Assuming that, we know the rate of C14 formation in the upper atmosphere. Scientists have theoretically calculated how long it would take to reach C14 equilibrium assuming that there is none to start with in the atmosphere. This would take about 30,000 years or so.
If we assume the earth to be billions of years old, no problem. We can also assume the C14 levels to be stable and then C14 dating would work.
However, lets assume that God created the earth 6000 years ago. If it takes 30,000 years to reach C14 equilibrium, the levels of C14 in the atmosphere would still be increasing, therefore anything that is relatively old would have existed when C14 levels were lower than they are today. This would show that the object has much less C14 than is present in the atmosphere today, giving it a much older age. I will explain in simple math (not real numbers for C14). If 3000 years ago there was 1% C14 and now there is 2%, an organism that died 3000 years ago would have started with 1% C14. If we ASSUME the levels to be the same then and now, we would assume that it started with 2%, and thus we are off by one half-life already.
Knowing that C14 exists in very small amounts and it would take 30,000 years to reach equilibrium, we would not notice an increase in the levels of C14 over the time span in which we have been able to measure it. It would appear stable (although it is increasing). It would increase in a logarithmic fashion because it would be rapid at first, but then it would start decaying, causing the rate of increase to slow down. Organisms that died around 5000-6000 years ago would appear to be far older (by magnitudes of thousands) than ones that died 4000-5000 years ago.
I'm not sure when we first measured the levels of C14 in the atmosphere, but I'm sure it was within the last 100 to 200 years. Assuming we have known the levels accurately for the last 200 years, if it takes 30,000 years to reach equilibrium and the levels are very low (growth would be very slow), it would appear to be stable. 200 years is nothing compared to 30,000. Imagine a graph where the X axis is from 0 to 30,000 and the slope of the line is almost straight, but increasing. A 200 year section of that graph, even at the portion of greatest growth, would appear straight. We cannot reasonably extrapolate the levels of C14 back thousands of years unless we ASSUME that the earth is very old. Only then does C14 dating work.
These methods of dating are internally flawed because of the potentially false assumptions they are built on. IF (that's a BIG if) they are true, only then does the dating method work.
This is a non-issue. Large fossils, such as tree stumps with intact root systems, are almost invariably found to have been covered over rapidly, not over thousands or millions of years.
Why only large fossils? Why can you say that large fossils are always covered rapidly and then in the same breath assume that all the other smaller fossils were covered over slowly? Oh, yeah, because your explanation would look like hogwash if it didn't happen in such an unlikely way.
A fossil log, say, was exposed by erosion many millions of years ago. At which time it became, essentially, an interesting looking boulder, exposed to weathering. It was then covered up *again* by slow sedimenation. Viola: a fossil penetrating many layers, and problem solved.
Oh I LOVE this one! What an UNLIKELY set of events! You come up with these explanations despite the fact that it is virtually impossible for it to happen.
You know, I think Osama scr*wed a mountain goat and, VOILA: you get Richard Reid! Nevermind that...
You claim that the reason we see intact, weathered fossils is because (we'll use a tree) a tree is covered rapidly by some event, and millions of years later it is UNCOVERED BY EROSION. This would mean that the rocks are eroding faster than sedimentation is occurring, right (it would have to)? You then say it became weathered and then RECOVERED by slow sedimentation??? How can something be uncovered by erosion and then recovered by sedimentation? The two forces are opposites of each other. Also, if a tree was "uncovered" by erosion, wouldn't it erode also? You are claiming that the rocks around the tree erode away, leaving the tree standing upright and then slow sedimentation settles and it appears that the tree is spanning several layers.
There is so much that is wrong with this statement that I'm laughing out loud at you. If a tree was standing upright and covered rapidly, then the rock above it began to erode away, when it got down to the tree it would erode the tree away also. The tree would not span any layers that would subsequently form on top of it, and in order to form these layers on top of the tree, sedimentation would have to overcome erosion.
The trees appear weathered because of the events that caused it to become buried. All the rock and debris rubbing against it in the chaotic event cause the weathered look. Do you expect a tree to pass through something like that unscathed? I hope not.
I think I'll stop there. This is getting tedious.