How old is the Earth?

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

Not to mention typical.

I guess he believes in a world-covering flood that killed all but 8 people, too?


There are two classes of xtians. One thinks that the Garden of Eden is allegorical and Noah's Ark was part of the folklore of the region. The second bunch swears that its all TOTALLY FUCKING REAL. The second group is truly worth nothing more than being used as a floor mat.

You are right and I respect christians who recognize the bible for what it is, but remember - this man - a young-earth creationist, according to what he's divulged, has taugt science. SCIENCE!
... I'm guessing he taught in Kansas or Texas, where facts are optional and believing is the same thing as knowing something to be true.

[Minimalist]

I'm guessing he didn't teach it very well.

Or, he taught it somewhere like a xtian "academy" which thinks religion is more important than knowledge.

[Circular Argument]

Yikes, hope he doesn't say that Christian academies are deeming religion more important than knowledge. In my experience with Christian Academies (most of them being classically taught in a Grammatical, Dialectic, and Rhetoric stage) teach that to deem knowledge over religion or wisdom is creating a dichotomy.

[Statler Waldorf]

---

Well you certainly don't add any credit to your position by being too scared to debate the opposing position. I never run from a debate because I am secure in my beliefs. I suggest you re-evalucate your's.

Refusing to argue with creationists doesn't imply the emotion of fear. There are people in the world who believe the earth is flat, now I would refuse to debate with them as well. It's just not worth it.

I don't debate with total idiots. End of.

Though I shall add this, because I wants too.



Now old chap, if you don't mind. I'm going to have some rest. It's really late over here. If you want to argue with someone over your beliefs, find someone else. Quite frankly the banana nightmare and the crock-a-duck did the trick on convincing me to never waste time with a creationist.

Good night.

---

Oh brother. Football Team A claims to be the best football team in the League. Only one problem, they refuse to play anyone. Football Team B claims to also be the best football team in the league and will play anyone, no matter where. They will even pay all the costs for the game and will even play the game at the Football Team A's Stadium. Football Team A still refuses and just says, "Football Team B is just not good enough to play us, we are not scared." Which football team is most likely the better team? Team B of course. Well that was almost too easy.

---

---

I don't think you get it. The An-isotropic Propagation of Light Model is completely consistant with Albert's Theories. You cannot prove one of the two models to be correct because emperical proof requires direct observation and the two models appear identical to the observer, that's the point. Like I said early, many are moving towards the newer model because it solves a lot of time problems fo the Big Bang theory. However, it also makes it so that you can know longer use Starlight to date the Universe, bummer dude.

It sounds like someone's attempt to say that despite all observational evidence, math, and physics, somesone somewhere found a way to attempt to discredit a consistent speed of light despite having zero observational evidence for that theory.
My google search on the topic turned up very few topics related to that specific model - precisely six results.
On the Origin of Inertia
The cosmological lens equation and the equivalent single-plane gravitational lens
The cosmological lens equation and the equivalent single-plane gravitational lens
(The above is the same file as the previous, different location)
Question On Origin of Inertia ( Physics Forums Cosmology )

Of the links provided, one didn't go to where the link stated (having nothing to do with the topic) and one attempted to download a file into my computer. From what I've read from the links provided above, the authors seem to asssert the opposite idea in terms of the propogation of light directionally.
In other words, I have no reason to believe, so far, that this idea simply isn't an attempt to psudeo-scientifically attenpt to discredit the speed of light's consistency throughout the universe. It's also interesting because despite admitting that it'd be impossible to observe, you neglect to mention all the problelms that this theory would have concerning pretty much all of physics... as in... the entire discipline would fall apart.

The youtube (seriously? youtube?) video you posted dealt with "C-decay", which has nothing to do with An-Isotropic Propagation of Light. So you missed the mark on that one.

Yes. I know it's hard to believe, but people post things on youtube that are professional as well as scientific up on youtube. Also, while C-decay was dealt with, it wasn't the primary focus of all the videos. In fact, it dealt with a number of things, except an-isotropic propogation of light but it did prove, using high school physics, that the speed of light is constant in all directions (which is something that the theory of relativity does as well).

According to Wikipedia (and if you don't like that source, I'll easily cite another):

Special relativity (SR) (also known as the special theory of relativity or STR) is the physical theory of measurement in inertial frames of reference proposed in 1905 by Albert Einstein (after the considerable and independent contributions of Hendrik Lorentz, Henri Poincaré and others) in the paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies". It generalizes Galileo's principle of relativity—that all uniform motion is relative, and that there is no absolute and well-defined state of rest (no privileged reference frames)—from mechanics to all the laws of physics, including both the laws of mechanics and of electrodynamics, whatever they may be. Special relativity incorporates the principle that the speed of light is the same for all inertial observers regardless of the state of motion of the source.

Thus, an-isotropic propogation of light (aka: un-identical propogation of light in all directions) is utterly in violation of Einstein's special theory of relativity and observation.

The Astrophysicist I quoted IS an expert and HAS spent his career observing the stars, so you didn't prove anything there.

And his viewpoint is irrelevant for one important reason (but not the only reason):
He's a creationist - which means he isn't objective which means any point he makes that contradicts his worldview is immediately the subject of scrutiny. Anything from him about anything he says, unless it has been peer reviewed by the scientific community, is irrelevant. I could make the case for many things said by most scientists about virtually anything because while scientific concepts come from individuals, like Einstein, they only become a part of the scientific literature when they are peer reviewed, subjected to repeatable tests or observation by independant source, and any number of other hurdles I may be forgetting.
That's why Evolution and Big Bang are prevelant in the scientific community and An-isotropic Propogation of Light is a lame attempt to discredit Relativity and the idea of a constant speed of light.

You said, "Nothing is one hundred percent accurate. Ever." Is this statement not 100 % accurate then? :-)

It's as accurate as anything else in the universe.

Well if the Earth is really 4.5 billion years old then you cannot "observe" that decay rates are constant because yoru observation is vastly too small and insignificant compared to the whole time period. Even if you could observe it for 100 years it would still only be 2.2X10^-11 percent of the total time. Even a curved line looks straight when you only observe an insignificant portion of it. So you're going to have to provide some other backing as to how you know those rates are constant

I don't need to see the whole planet to know that the earth is spherical. I just need a few good points to measure and trigonometry and I can figure out the circumferance of the entire planet without needing a billion-dollar shuttle and a space suit.
Same concept. Different application.

Between 6000 and 7000 years.

That's just sad.

---

Haha, nice attempt, but fail. An-isotropic Propagation of light is just observable as isotropic propagation of light. The mathematic models work exactly the same for both models. So to try and say that one is superior to the other based on the math is fallacious.

The Wiki article you posted is talking about observer's movement in relation to the light source. NOt the same thing. Nice try though.

Actually the Astrophysicist I cited DOES have articles in Peer-reviewed journals. So to say he does not is just being dishonest. I guess we cannot use Netwon's Laws of Motion since Newton was a Creationist and apparently Creationist's are not objective! I hate to break it to you, nobody is objective. There is no neutral ground- your preconceived ideas detemrine your conclusions just as much as mine do. This is pretty evident by your attempt to discredit someone with a Ph.D in Astrophysicis solely because of his Religious views. Pretty silly really. If you keep playing that game too much I will just require that you only cite peer-reviewed journals and notn wikipedia and youtube. I may even make it so you have to only cite Creation Peer-Reviewed Journals since you seem to only cite Evolutionary Sources. So I suggest we not open that can of worms and look at the arguments presented and not play the "my source is better than your's" game- it's quite frankly pretty childish.

Besides, the An-isotropic Propagation of Light Model is just one of several models that can get Distant Starlight to Earth in a very short period of time on Earth. It just happens to be the one I lean towards because it is very recent and clear-cut.

[Cego_Colher]

Oh brother. Football Team A claims to be the best football team in the League. Only one problem, they refuse to play anyone. Football Team B claims to also be the best football team in the league and will play anyone, no matter where. They will even pay all the costs for the game and will even play the game at the Football Team A's Stadium. Football Team A still refuses and just says, "Football Team B is just not good enough to play us, we are not scared." Which football team is most likely the better team? Team B of course. Well that was almost too easy.

is the cat dead or alive? you can't honestly know which team is better. of course you would naturally take the guess that B is better, but since they have not played a game you cannot know which one is better.

[Statler Waldorf]

That's just sad.

Not to mention typical.

I guess he believes in a world-covering flood that killed all but 8 people, too?


There are two classes of xtians. One thinks that the Garden of Eden is allegorical and Noah's Ark was part of the folklore of the region. The second bunch swears that its all TOTALLY FUCKING REAL. The second group is truly worth nothing more than being used as a floor mat.

Sadly for you, the one who belongs to the second group has been walking all over you in this discussion. You have done NOTHING to prove your position. I was right when I first saw your posts. you are a mud slinger who needs others to tell him what to believe because he doesn't know why he believes what he believes.

---

Not to mention typical.

I guess he believes in a world-covering flood that killed all but 8 people, too?


There are two classes of xtians. One thinks that the Garden of Eden is allegorical and Noah's Ark was part of the folklore of the region. The second bunch swears that its all TOTALLY FUCKING REAL. The second group is truly worth nothing more than being used as a floor mat.

You are right and I respect christians who recognize the bible for what it is, but remember - this man - a young-earth creationist, according to what he's divulged, has taugt science. SCIENCE!
... I'm guessing he taught in Kansas or Texas, where facts are optional and believing is the same thing as knowing something to be true.

Why would I take theological advice from an Atheist? That's like a woman taking child bearing advice from a male. Of course you respect compromising Christians, because they are weak in their beliefs.

Yup I taught Science, and as I pointed out earlier my classes dominated using what I taught them. Now you are a bigot towards what state people are born in? You really are sickening. FYI, I taught in neither of those States. I taught in one of the most Liberal States in the Union and that is probably one reason my classes ripped up the other schools so badly.

Quite frankly I wouldn't want my children having you as a teacher, no doubt their text books would be replaced with Wikipedia and they'd be watching youtube in class lol. Sad.

---

I'm guessing he didn't teach it very well.

Or, he taught it somewhere like a xtian "academy" which thinks religion is more important than knowledge.

Haha no, but this post right here shows your ignorance on the subject. It's well documented that Private School kids (majority of which are Christian Schools) receive far better educations than public school kids (all of which are Secular). They attend better universities and score higher on the SAT and other Standardized tests. So funny you would even bring that up considering the data that is not in your favor. I can totally tell you were a public school student huh? lol.

---

Oh brother. Football Team A claims to be the best football team in the League. Only one problem, they refuse to play anyone. Football Team B claims to also be the best football team in the league and will play anyone, no matter where. They will even pay all the costs for the game and will even play the game at the Football Team A's Stadium. Football Team A still refuses and just says, "Football Team B is just not good enough to play us, we are not scared." Which football team is most likely the better team? Team B of course. Well that was almost too easy.

is the cat dead or alive? you can't honestly know which team is better. of course you would naturally take the guess that B is better, but since they have not played a game you cannot know which one is better.

Well which team appears better to you? It's the same argument schools use to not play Boise State. They put out an open invitation to play anyone anywhere in 2011 and nobody took them up on it. Why? Well it was not because people thought Boise State was "too crummy of a team", even though some said that. It's obvious they are worried about losing to Boise State- so they would rather just avoid them. It would also be a huge embarrassment to them if they lost to Boise State because they get more funding and have more students than Boise Stete.

It's the exact same situation here. Evolutionists get way more funding and there is way more of them, but for some odd reason they are afraid to death to debate Creationists. They know they could lose that debate and this would be a HUGE embarrassment. If Creationists thoguht they could not back their position up, then why would they want to debate it so badly? If I knew I would lose a game I would rather not play it. They know their arguments are sound, and their science is sound. Dawkins likes to only debate in front of friendly audiences and against non-creation opponents for this very reason. He is afraid to debate guys who actually earned their Ph.Ds and did not just get Honorary Doctorates lol. He's small time.

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

Haha, nice attempt, but fail. An-isotropic Propagation of light is just observable as isotropic propagation of light. The mathematic models work exactly the same for both models. So to try and say that one is superior to the other based on the math is fallacious.

I suppose I'm just going to have to take your word for it.
If only basic high school physics could prove... oh wait... it does.

The Wiki article you posted is talking about observer's movement in relation to the light source. NOt the same thing. Nice try though.

For all observers, light moves at the same speed, regardless of the motion of the source or the observer's location and motion. It actually says that in the wiki article and any place else I could find that states what the special theory of relativity is.
I don't know how you're not reading that when it so obvioiusly refutes that crackpot theory.
Nice try, though.

Actually the Astrophysicist I cited DOES have articles in Peer-reviewed journals. So to say he does not is just being dishonest.

So it's a good thing I never actually stated anything to that effect.
I anticipate easily discrediting him for having his articles peer-reviewed only by like-minded creationists.

I guess we cannot use Netwon's Laws of Motion since Newton was a Creationist and apparently Creationist's are not objective!

Newton's prominance in history and the importance of his work were not decided by Newton alone and it wasn't even determined during the time that he was alive. Newton's laws held up for the same reason that Evolution has held up for as long as it has, as well as any number of scientific concepts that you've already stated to have rejected.
If this man has work peer reviewed by the scientific community - not Answers in Genesis, not the Discovery Institute, or any other purely religious institution, I might give it some merit but I can already see where your new laws of how light propogates already violates special relativity, which in physics, is a ginormous no-no.

I hate to break it to you, nobody is objective. There is no neutral ground- your preconceived ideas detemrine your conclusions just as much as mine do. This is pretty evident by your attempt to discredit someone with a Ph.D in Astrophysicis solely because of his Religious views.

Which is why I pay little attention to individuals with very rare exception and even then, I take the things they say with a grain of salt. A Ph.D. isn't a one-way-ticket to never have his work be refuted nor does it give him objectivity - particularly when he publicly ascribes to a worldview that is utterly inconsistent with evidence especially when that evidence is in his main line of his supposedly professional work.

Pretty silly really. If you keep playing that game too much I will just require that you only cite peer-reviewed journals and notn wikipedia and youtube. I may even make it so you have to only cite Creation Peer-Reviewed Journals since you seem to only cite Evolutionary Sources. So I suggest we not open that can of worms and look at the arguments presented and not play the "my source is better than your's" game- it's quite frankly pretty childish.

There are so many things I could and perhaps should say here, but instead I'm simply going to state that the exersize would be pointless. I have nothing I need to prove to you because as that atheist slogan goes, I have the fossils. I win.

Besides, the An-isotropic Propagation of Light Model is just one of several models that can get Distant Starlight to Earth in a very short period of time on Earth. It just happens to be the one I lean towards because it is very recent and clear-cut.

That's nice. It's still very clearly in violation of the laws of physics and thanks to that filthy, filthy youtube video you've dismissed like yesterday's garbage, it's easily refuted for the garbage that it actually is.

[Statler Waldorf]

---

Haha, nice attempt, but fail. An-isotropic Propagation of light is just observable as isotropic propagation of light. The mathematic models work exactly the same for both models. So to try and say that one is superior to the other based on the math is fallacious.

I suppose I'm just going to have to take your word for it.
If only basic high school physics could prove... oh wait... it does.

The Wiki article you posted is talking about observer's movement in relation to the light source. NOt the same thing. Nice try though.

For all observers, light moves at the same speed, regardless of the motion of the source or the observer's location and motion. It actually says that in the wiki article and any place else I could find that states what the special theory of relativity is.
I don't know how you're not reading that when it so obvioiusly refutes that crackpot theory.
Nice try, though.

Actually the Astrophysicist I cited DOES have articles in Peer-reviewed journals. So to say he does not is just being dishonest.

So it's a good thing I never actually stated anything to that effect.
I anticipate easily discrediting him for having his articles peer-reviewed only by like-minded creationists.

I guess we cannot use Netwon's Laws of Motion since Newton was a Creationist and apparently Creationist's are not objective!

Newton's prominance in history and the importance of his work were not decided by Newton alone and it wasn't even determined during the time that he was alive. Newton's laws held up for the same reason that Evolution has held up for as long as it has, as well as any number of scientific concepts that you've already stated to have rejected.
If this man has work peer reviewed by the scientific community - not Answers in Genesis, not the Discovery Institute, or any other purely religious institution, I might give it some merit but I can already see where your new laws of how light propogates already violates special relativity, which in physics, is a ginormous no-no.

I hate to break it to you, nobody is objective. There is no neutral ground- your preconceived ideas detemrine your conclusions just as much as mine do. This is pretty evident by your attempt to discredit someone with a Ph.D in Astrophysicis solely because of his Religious views.

Which is why I pay little attention to individuals with very rare exception and even then, I take the things they say with a grain of salt. A Ph.D. isn't a one-way-ticket to never have his work be refuted nor does it give him objectivity - particularly when he publicly ascribes to a worldview that is utterly inconsistent with evidence especially when that evidence is in his main line of his supposedly professional work.

Pretty silly really. If you keep playing that game too much I will just require that you only cite peer-reviewed journals and notn wikipedia and youtube. I may even make it so you have to only cite Creation Peer-Reviewed Journals since you seem to only cite Evolutionary Sources. So I suggest we not open that can of worms and look at the arguments presented and not play the "my source is better than your's" game- it's quite frankly pretty childish.

There are so many things I could and perhaps should say here, but instead I'm simply going to state that the exersize would be pointless. I have nothing I need to prove to you because as that atheist slogan goes, I have the fossils. I win.

Besides, the An-isotropic Propagation of Light Model is just one of several models that can get Distant Starlight to Earth in a very short period of time on Earth. It just happens to be the one I lean towards because it is very recent and clear-cut.

That's nice. It's still very clearly in violation of the laws of physics and thanks to that filthy, filthy youtube video you've dismissed like yesterday's garbage, it's easily refuted for the garbage that it actually is.

---

Haha, you again? Well either you missed what Dr. Netwon said, or you just flat-out ignored it to try and make a dishonest point abou tSpecial Relativity. Dr. Newton deseribes Special Relativity as a "well tested and valid theory"- so of course he is going to follow the theory. However, according to special relativity the speed of light is constant in a vaccum when using the calculated time definition. You will notice that Dr. Newton says he uses the observational time definitioin, which is a whole nother hill of beans. So you have essentially tried to disprove Dr. Newton by stating something that he himself agrees with. Kinda funny.

So does this mean you discredit Secular Scientists because they only had their articles reviewed by like-minded secularists? You are commiting the old fallacy of Special Pleading. If you have to move the goal posts to keep up with me, then I guess you have to do what you have to do right?

I have an idea, why don't you read a peer-reviewed article about this subject by Dr. Newton and tell the rest of us where he goes wrong? I am guessing since it is rather obvious you do not have a Science Degree that it will go way over your head, but you can still give it the old college try right?

I didn't give your youtube video much attention because it was not peer-reviewed. I can't let you break your own rules of only peer-reviewed material! Fair is fair right? :-)

By the way, Dr. Newton graduated summa cum laude from his doctoral graduating class, so to act like he is some Pastor trying to do Physics is laughable. He knows what he is doing.

---

I don't need to see the whole planet to know that the earth is spherical. I just need a few good points to measure and trigonometry and I can figure out the circumferance of the entire planet without needing a billion-dollar shuttle and a space suit.
Same concept. Different application.

You can only do this when you measure a significant portion of the Earth. Obviously you must have missed that from my post. Measuring 100 years worth of a supposedly 4.5 billiion year history would be the same as trying to do calculations on the Earth's surface by only measuring 3.5 inches of it! Good luck with that lol.

[Loki_999]

Between 6000 and 7000 years.

Wow, the thread has moved on a lot since yesterday. Thank you finally for revealing your true colours. I thought you were a YEC from the start but its good to have it clarified.

Ok, i'm not going to debate the light thingy with you, because looks like you guys are going backwards and forwards on it. Like i said in one of my other posts... lets talk Dinosaurs!

As Bill Hicks said ... no, wait, i'm sure a video is better here...





I'm strapping myself in for the response on this one... explain how all those Dinosaurs lived at the same time as early human civilization... if you mention Leviathan you get immediate demerit. What about cavemen? What about early Chinese civilization which was happily farming the earth several thousand years before your god created the earth?

I know the flood comes into the answer for this one, Noah took 2 of every animal as ordered by God but for some reason he didn't take the Dinosaurs .... typical human, can't follow Gods instructions to the letter even when it comes to genocide. Still, would have been difficult to get those Tyrannosaurs and Brontosauruses on the Ark. And while you are at it, you can also tell us how there was a land bridge between Asia and Australia so all the Kangaroos and Koalas could migrate to Australia after the flood. And why did most marsupials decide they all wanted to live in Australia? Why don't we find Kangaroos and other Australian animals scattered between the middle east and Australia?

Ok, go for it....

[Minimalist]

Why would I take theological advice from an Atheist? That's like a woman taking child bearing advice from a male. Of course you respect compromising Christians, because they are weak in their beliefs.

Actually they are merely slightly more intelligent than you....not saying much but with people who believe in the sky daddy one has to take what one can get.