(October 25, 2013 at 6:04 pm)Doubting Thomas Wrote: http://creation.com/speed-of-light-slowi...-after-all\

Quote:Well over a decade ago, CMI’s Creation magazine published very supportive articles concerning a theory by South Australian creationist Barry Setterfield, that the speed of light (‘c’) had slowed down or ‘decayed’ progressively since creation.

Did you read the entire article you quoted? CMI does not officially support the C-Decay hypothesis (they support the Humphreys’ model), they were merely explaining how the recent findings by Davies relate to the theory. If you were arguing that creationists had used this argument in the past I would not have objected, however that is not what was being argued. It was being argued that this is still the argument creationists use today to solve the “distant starlight problem”- which it is not.

“One common solution that has been presented, and continues to appear, is that the speed of light was enormously faster around Creation Week and has slowed down since (c-decay1). A good example of this may be found in a book by Burgess,2 which has recently been reviewed. The review describes a rapid aging process for stars and a faster speed of light. The universe was accelerated like fast-forwarding a videotape, and after all the light information reached the Earth the rates were reduced to what we now measure. The problem with this model is that the stars would disappear from view as the light slowed down, subsequently taking millions and billions of years to get to Earth. Also, such light arriving at the Earth would show enormous observable blueshifts.3 It doesn’t. A more ingenious mechanism is needed to overcome such obvious objections.” - http://creation.com/a-new-cosmology-solu...me-problem

Quote:To solve the starlight problem, some creationists have proposed a change in the speed of light; this proposition became known as C-decay. The idea was first systematically advanced by creationist Barry Setterfield in his 1981 book The Velocity of Light and the Age of the Universe. Setterfield claimed that, at the date of creation, light traveled millions of times faster than it does today and has been decaying exponentially ever since.

RationalWiki? Lol. All this proves is that creationists have argued for C-Decay in the past, which I never claimed otherwise. The point is that none of the major creation organizations support the theory today.

Quote: http://christianity.stackexchange.com/qu...-the-speed

Quote:My father, at that time, was convinced that the speed of light has been slowing down since the creation of the universe.

What someone’s father was convinced of is in the past irrelevant to the discussion.

Quote:

Quote:But some people have proposed that light was much quicker in the past. If so, light could traverse the universe in only a fraction of the time it would take today. Some creation scientists believe that this is the answer to the problem of distant starlight in a young universe.

Disingenuous. I’ll quote the entire passage and bold the parts you conveniently left out for everyone to see. AIG supports Lisle’s model, not the C-Decay model.

“But some people have proposed that light was much quicker in the past. If so, light could traverse the universe in only a fraction of the time it would take today. Some creation scientists believe that this is the answer to the problem of distant starlight in a young universe.

However, the speed of light is not an “arbitrary” parameter. In other words, changing the speed of light would cause other things to change as well, such as the ratio of energy to mass in any system.3 Some people have argued that the speed of light can never have been much different than it is today because it is so connected to other constants of nature. In other words, life may not be possible if the speed of light were any different.

This is a legitimate concern. The way in which the universal constants are connected is only partially understood. So, the impact of a changing speed of light on the universe and life on earth is not fully known.”

Quote: You may admit that you are wrong now.

You have demonstrated two things…

1. My initial statement that creationists do not support C-decay anymore was accurate because none of the creation organizations you quoted support using the model.
2. You are disingenuous concerning the manner in which you quote your sources.

(October 25, 2013 at 6:39 pm)Zazzy Wrote: No goalpost shifts. You claimed that there was a double standard in play, whereby scientists could claim that there is an illusion of design, but creationists cannot claim that natural selection is the illusion, and that we may all be looking at this ass-backwards. All things being equal in the primary scholarly research arena, this claim would have merit. So it boils down to evidence. Scientists publish hundreds of peer-reviewed experimental papers every year that show that genomic change occurs (and for the most part, we can prove exactly how those changes occur) in organisms, and that selective factors dependent on environment shift allele frequencies, and hence biological structures, in populations. It is so well understood that we can mimic these in the lab and study the mechanisms.

Not so fast! That is not the claim I was refuting, I was refuting your claim that creationists do not do any of their own research (which is completely false). Secondly, the number of peer-reviewed articles supporting a position is ultimately irrelevant; one peer-reviewed article can and often has discredited hundreds of articles that came before it.

Quote: So it would seem that you, if you'd like to establish that all things ARE equal, should show me at least ten (a very small number, and a number that can give a basic overview of the field) of the best primary scholarly experimental research papers by creationists detailing a.)that something aside from natural selection changes the genotypes and phenotypes of organisms, and b.) an exact mechanism for that other mode of change. These papers should (in order to establish that all things are, in fact, equal- to give your "double standard"argument merit):

I cannot figure out how you got so off topic. Creationists accept natural selection as a valid mechanism- I was never arguing that they did not. I was merely pointing out that Dawkins argues for the use of illusion in science, which means that if someone argues for the appearance of age in the Universe being illusion they are not necessarily being unscientific. Somehow you got off thinking that I was arguing that creationists believe that natural selection is an illusion. Natural selection can be a real mechanism and life can still have the valid appearance of design anyways- they are not mutually exclusive.

Quote:
2.) be peer-reviewed by scientists knowledgeable in the field

Reviewers are always anonymous so I am not sure how you are going to ever meet this criterion.

Quote: 3.) use currently accepted experimental techniques

Does research that does not meet currently accepted research techniques generally get published in peer-reviewed journals?

Quote: Those criteria are what I would expect from anybody making any scientific claim.

Wait, are you really going to take the position that only good science is peer-reviewed and all peer-reviewed science is good science?

Quote: Then we get down to the fun part: putting contradictory experimental data side by side and letting the best data- and the most sensible explanation of that data- take the field. It's [sic] how scientists do it.

I wish it really were that simple but I am afraid it is not.

(October 25, 2013 at 6:48 pm)Maelstrom Wrote: I am quite certain that it is.

After all, when God got mad that humanity was not behaving according to his demands, what did he do? He used natural disasters to destroy them.

Such a petty god, certainly unworthy of worship.

I was clearly referring to the belief that God uses natural disasters to control the Earth’s population, not as a form of judgment. Why do you object to God destroying His own creation?

(October 25, 2013 at 7:02 pm)Zazzy Wrote: If SW has a nice broad field of primary research by creationists, (I didn't even specify YEC to allow him latitude), then by all means, let's see a good cross-section of it, and see if it's up to the standards set by even a middling scientific journal. If he can put up, he doesn't need to shut up.

I do not understand why you are mischaracterizing my position like this. You explicitly made the claim that creationists do not do any of their own research. I explicitly objected to that claim. Now you are referring to cross references and asking for numerous articles published this year. Why?

Person A: No African American has won the Academy Award for Best Actor.
Person B: That’s actually false.
Person A: Oh really? Well then name ten of them for all to see or else you need to shut up.
Person B: Why would I have to name ten? You simply said not a single one has won the award. Shouldn’t I only need to name one?
Person A: Well dozens of people have won that award, surely you can name ten.
Person B: What just happened?

(October 25, 2013 at 8:28 pm)Zen Badger Wrote: For those who weren't around at the time, Statler offered up anisotropic light propagation as a way of explaining why the universe looks old when it is only young.

Incorrect. I never said anything about the appearance of age- I simply said it is a way to get distant starlight to Earth instantaneously, which it is.

Quote: This(what we will laughingly refer to as a) theory was originally spewed forth by one Jason Lisle, a YEC astronomer working for ICR as I recall.

Also incorrect. Anisotropic Synchrony Conventions were known of and used during Einstein’s time. Secondly, Lisle works for AIG, not ICR (you’re not batting a very good average so far).

Quote: The "theory" goes like this.

It’s not a theory, it’s a convention.

Quote: Since it impossible to accurately measure the one way speed of light because of relativistic effects, the only way to to [sic] do it is to bounce light off a reflector and divide the result by two.

Well there are other experiments but they all involve either moving the clocks or presupposing a synchrony convention a prirori so in principle what you are getting at is correct.

Quote: Lisle uses this to claim that light travelling away from Earth travels at half c while lightspeed travelling towards Earth is at infinite velocity.

Very roughly stated.

Quote: Thereby using the loophole that you can't "know" for certain that light is travelling at the same speed to and from the reflector.

This is true, it’s merely a stipulation.

Quote: The theory overlooks one minor(glaring) problem however.

I doubt it.

Quote: It used to be thought that lightspeed was infinite, because of course we had no way of determining otherwise.

So?

Quote: But in 1726 Ole Romer, a Danish astronomer discovered that light did indeed have a finite velocity when he found discrepancies in the transit times of Io behind Jupiter.

Yup.

Quote: Light coming towards Earth.

Yup, but this cannot be used to refute Lisle’s position because in his model the observational difference is not due to an actual lightspeed delay from Jupiter to Earth changing as the distance between them changes, but rather because time itself runs differently depending on the differing distance from Earth to Jupiter. It’s a position dependent system rather than a velocity dependent system. We’d observe the exact same phenomena using either convention.

Quote: Now, if Lisle was a real scientist, he would have known about this. But professional liars for Jesus have never let minor details like facts get in the way of their bullshit and deceptions.

Not only did Lisle already know about your objection, he’s addressed it numerous times before. It’s hilarious that you actually thought you knew more about the subject than someone with a PhD in Astrophysics; such hubris.

(October 25, 2013 at 9:18 pm)Optimistic Mysanthrope Wrote: CMBR, redshift, extrapolation using 'standard candles' and light speed, chemical composition and star populations. How's that to get you started?

You just tossed out a bunch of stuff; you’re going to have to be more specific as to how any of that supports your position.

Quote: And yes, before you say it, I know full well that creationists try to account for these things. However, the science is questionable at best and they made the mistake of started with a conclusion and try to shoe-horn the evidence into it.

That’s actually called the scientific method, you must first formulate a hypothesis.

Quote:Again, the evidence supports it.

So you assert. Am I allowed to merely assert that the evidence actually supports the creationists’ position? Assertion for assertion.

Quote:Really? I thought the comment in question was regarding the earth being more than 10,000 years old.

It is, but radiocarbon dating is not used to date the Earth.

Quote:Um....every dating method we have? Such as:
[*]U-Pb dating
[*]Ar-ar dating
[*]C14 dating
[*]Geological record
[*]Genetic divergence
[/list]

Are you saying that these methods are always in agreement and can be empirically verified?

Quote:Well all I could find was some ridiculous notion that the geomagnetic reversals recorded in the oceanic crust happened in a matter of days.

Why is that ridiculous?

Quote:Or possibly that I didn't think they deserved a response.

Whether you arbitrarily think something deserves a response or not is irrelevant.

Quote:Oh, I can. I shouldn't have to.

So you cannot?

Quote:Well, there's the matrilineal and patrilineal most recent ancestors, for starters.

How do you know this?

Quote:Really? try here

CWM is not a very prominent creation organization. I am sure you can find other creationists who still argue for C-Decay (just like you can still find secular astrophysicists who argue for a steady state Universe rather than the currently accepted Big Bang cosmology), but the point is that the theory has greatly fallen out of favor with creationists so by arguing against it you are arguing against a position that even most creationists do not agree with (and thus wasting all of our time).

(October 25, 2013 at 9:32 pm)Owlix Wrote: ....
...

Face


Palm.

If that’s not the case then why do you all insist on bringing up the same half dozen reasons? Are the other reasons just too awesome to share?

(October 25, 2013 at 10:54 pm)Doubting Thomas Wrote: No, you didn't factor in "Goddidit."

No, he actually didn’t factor in relativity.

(October 26, 2013 at 12:57 pm)Thor Wrote: And your evidence for this position is.....?

Well it’s important to note that not all creationists accept this model, many accept a slant-wise vertical tectonic model. However, the mechanism appears to work fairly well from a scientific perspective. A negatively buoyant ocean lithosphere would create a runaway subduction mechanism into the Earth’s mantle.

Quote: And why would a global flood cause runaway continental drift? Tectonic plates are many miles below the Earth's surface! You're going to say that a flood caused South America and Africa to become separated by thousands of miles in a few months?

You have that backwards; the plate tectonic action caused the flood by pushing oceanic waters onto the continents and then caused the flood to recede due to continental upheaval back to the oceans towards the end of the flood year.

(October 26, 2013 at 7:50 pm)Zen Badger Wrote: And that's without factoring in the energy released by billions of tons of continental plate travelling at thousands of miles an hour that would've boiled off the oceans and turned the planet into a smouldering ember that still would not have cooled down.

I am sorry but this is also incorrect. The amount of heat generated by the deforming of a solid material is directly proportional to that material’s strength. During the runaway process, the strength of the object is reduced by up to eight to ten orders of magnitude. This would mean that heat levels due to the plate movements would remain reasonable.

(October 27, 2013 at 2:06 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: There is also the issue of the reversal of the earths poles being recorded in bands in the ocean floor which helps to date them.

http://istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/earthmag/reversal.htm

No, that’s not really an issue, there’s lines of evidence that support rapid polar reversals.

Quote:I was refuting your claim that creationists do not do any of their own research (which is completely false).

Oh really? In what peer reviewed scientific journals are these creationists publishing their work? More importantly, in what laboratories are they conducting their experiments?

I stand by my statement because I still see the "speed of light changing drastically" idea thrown around by creationists. It was your assertion that nobody uses that argument, period, not that nobody uses it any more. Can you be 100% certain that no creationist anywhere uses that argument at all? You're just trying to weasel out of being wrong (yet again).

The fact is that it's just yet another of many unproven hypotheses which creationists have invented and then spread around as fact and only discarded after they realized how foolish they looked espousing it as fact. Look at all the nonsense ideas that Kent Hovind dreamed up and which are now no longer considered good arguments by YEC's.

(October 28, 2013 at 8:10 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Not so fast! That is not the claim I was refuting, I was refuting your claim that creationists do not do any of their own research (which is completely false). Secondly, the number of peer-reviewed articles supporting a position is ultimately irrelevant; one peer-reviewed article can and often has discredited hundreds of articles that came before it.

Well, if you show me only one, I'll have to retract the claim that they don't do ANY of their own research, although one paper against thousands is pretty weak. But when I enter a new field, I (like most people, I think) like to get a good overview of it. I don't think any scientific field could provide you with one paper and say you had a good understanding of that field. I could start giving you an idea of the current state of many fields with about 10 good current papers. If you can't do it, OK.

Quote:I cannot figure out how you got so off topic. Creationists accept natural selection as a valid mechanism- I was never arguing that they did not.

I guess it was this quote, from your post #48, which "got me so off topic":

Quote:How do you know that it is the appearance of design that is the illusion and not the natural selection mechanism that is the illusion?

Did you mean something different? If so, then say so.

Quote: I was merely pointing out that Dawkins argues for the use of illusion in science, which means that if someone argues for the appearance of age in the Universe being illusion they are not necessarily being unscientific.

And all things being equal in the primary research, this claim would have merit, as I have said.

Quote: Somehow you got off thinking that I was arguing that creationists believe that natural selection is an illusion. Natural selection can be a real mechanism and life can still have the valid appearance of design anyways- they are not mutually exclusive.

So is natural selection real, or does it have the appearance of design, or both? This is waffly. I think your research papers would probably help me, here, since they'll obviously propose molecular mechanisms I currently am not aware of.

Quote:Reviewers are always anonymous so I am not sure how you are going to ever meet this criterion.

Well, if it's published in a respected journal, you can be sure it has been peer-reviewed (with the exception of PNAS. I hate that about them).

Quote:Does research that does not meet currently accepted research techniques generally get published in peer-reviewed journals?

Not generally, although new research protocols are often published, and then immediately are tried by competitive grad students. If they don't work, the grad students get their PIs to write angry letters, and then the papers get retracted. This does happen occasionally (think the cloning scandal).

Quote:Wait, are you really going to take the position that only good science is peer-reviewed and all peer-reviewed science is good science?

Nope. But it's a good start when you're learning a new field. Much more reliable than anything else we've got. And since usefulness is all that matters to the grade-grubbing grad students, fraud is usually detected. Is it perfect? No. It's the best system around, though.

Quote:

Quote: Then we get down to the fun part: putting contradictory experimental data side by side and letting the best data- and the most sensible explanation of that data- take the field. It's [sic] how scientists do it.

I wish it really were that simple but I am afraid it is not.

I'm not sure why you included a [sic] here, since "it's" is contraction of "it is," as in "it is how most scientists do it." A correct use of "its" would be, "Look at that dog! Its hat is on backwards!"
Clear?

It's (see that? "It is" becomes "it's" with the use of an apostrophe to replace a letter!) that simple, and it's really fun. It's even fun to be wrong in a scientific argument over data and analysis, because you learn so much in the process and it generally saves you from publishing something that might embarrass you. Are you not going to provide the papers? I was looking forward to it.

Quote:I do not understand why you are mischaracterizing my position like this. You explicitly made the claim that creationists do not do any of their own research. I explicitly objected to that claim. Now you are referring to cross references and asking for numerous articles published this year.

I don't believe I am mischaracterizing you. I have already said that if you have one paper to show me, I will of course retract my claim that creationists do NO research. But that's petty given the larger concern- that scientists are entirely overlooking a rich and well-researched body of data from excellent creationist scientists, an unacceptable situation. If the playing field is indeed level, then creationists must publish hundreds of primary research papers every year, so asking for ten is pretty piddly, and surely you feel (as I would) that 10 papers could never do the richness of your field justice. Plus, I qualified it to "the last few years," and I said that if there was a particularly seminal work that was a little older, I'd be willing to look at it.

It seems you would WANT to show me the research, if it's so convincing. Why be so resistant?

Quote:Oh really? In what peer reviewed scientific journals are these creationists publishing their work? More importantly, in what laboratories are they conducting their experiments?

In the Creatard Journal of Holy Horseshit.....

Here's a copy.

(October 28, 2013 at 8:10 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

Quote: But in 1726 Ole Romer, a Danish astronomer discovered that light did indeed have a finite velocity when he found discrepancies in the transit times of Io behind Jupiter.

Yup.

Quote: Light coming towards Earth.

Yup, but this cannot be used to refute Lisle’s position because in his model the observational difference is not due to an actual lightspeed delay from Jupiter to Earth changing as the distance between them changes, but rather because time itself runs differently depending on the differing distance from Earth to Jupiter. It’s a position dependent system rather than a velocity dependent system. We’d observe the exact same phenomena using either convention.

Quote: Now, if Lisle was a real scientist, he would have known about this. But professional liars for Jesus have never let minor details like facts get in the way of their bullshit and deceptions.

Not only did Lisle already know about your objection, he’s addressed it numerous times before. It’s hilarious that you actually thought you knew more about the subject than someone with a PhD in Astrophysics; such hubris.

Now, you're just making shit up to defend your increasingly flimsy position.

BTW, the thundering round of indifference from the astronomical and astrophysical communities would suggest that I am not alone in my dismissal of Lisles bullshit.

(October 28, 2013 at 8:10 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: I was clearly referring to the belief that God uses natural disasters to control the Earth’s population, not as a form of judgment. Why do you object to God destroying His own creation?

Because assuming your god exists, if this method of population control is the best it can come up with, it is far from omniscient. If your god is truly both omniscient and omnipotent, then doing so would make it a petty, vindictive little shit.

Quote:Incorrect. I never said anything about the appearance of age- I simply said it is a way to get distant starlight to Earth instantaneously, which it is.

So how does that position take this into account?

Quote:”The way in which the universal constants are connected is only partially understood. So, the impact of a changing speed of light on the universe and life on earth is not fully known.”

Quote:Not only did Lisle already know about your objection, he’s addressed it numerous times before. It’s hilarious that you actually thought you knew more about the subject than someone with a PhD in Astrophysics; such hubris.

Maybe if Lyle got himself a microwave and a chocolate bar, he could try this experiment for over 11's

(October 28, 2013 at 8:10 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

(October 25, 2013 at 9:18 pm)Optimistic Mysanthrope Wrote: CMBR, redshift, extrapolation using 'standard candles' and light speed, chemical composition and star populations. How's that to get you started?

You just tossed out a bunch of stuff; you’re going to have to be more specific as to how any of that supports your position.

I find it hard to believe you don't already know this, but here goes. Using “standard candles” (such as neutron stars, supernovae, interstellar maser emission etc...) it is possible to calculate the distance of a stellar object/galaxy/whatever. Doing a simple calculation with light speed will tell you how long it long for light to reach us from that object, and therefore give a minimum age. The further away an object is, the higher the minimum age.

The hubble constant tells us that the universe is expanding proportional to distance. Extrapolating backwards, the universe was once smaller and more dense, therefore with higher temperatures. The CMBR discovered in 1964 by Penzias and Wilson fits the predictions made by the big bang model, so too does the star population and the chemical composition of the observable universe.

There are plenty of resources available on the internet that explain it much better than I.

(October 28, 2013 at 8:10 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

(October 25, 2013 at 9:18 pm)Optimistic Mysanthrope Wrote: And yes, before you say it, I know full well that creationists try to account for these things. However, the science is questionable at best and they made the mistake of started with a conclusion and try to shoe-horn the evidence into it.

That’s actually called the scientific method, you must first formulate a hypothesis.

No. That is not the scientific method. That is the creationist method. The scientific method is to generate a hypothesis after making observations.

Quote:

Quote:Really? I thought the comment in question was regarding the earth being more than 10,000 years old.

It is, but radiocarbon dating is not used to date the Earth.

It used to reliably date organic materials up to 50,000 years old (maybe more, I seem to remember reading that it can now be used up to 60,000 or so. The method isn't used to date the earth as we know itmuch older than that. However, since YEC's claim the earth is 10,000 years old or less, I deemed it relevant.

Quote:

Quote:Well all I could find was some ridiculous notion that the geomagnetic reversals recorded in the oceanic crust happened in a matter of days.

Why is that ridiculous?

I'm guessing that science was not your best subject at school.

Quote:

Quote:Oh, I can. I shouldn't have to.

So you cannot?

Or English, it seems.

Quote:

Quote:Or possibly that I didn't think they deserved a response.

Whether you arbitrarily think something deserves a response or not is irrelevant.

Don't be obtuse, of course it's relevant. If I don't deem something to be worthy of a response, I won't respond.

Quote:

Quote:Well, there's the matrilineal and patrilineal most recent ancestors, for starters.

How do you know this?

By tracing genetic markers. If you want more, you have the internet. Use it. Stop using me as a surrogate search engine. If you think you can refute the evidence, do so. If not, stop whining.

Quote:No, that’s not really an issue, there’s lines of evidence that support rapid polar reversals.

I thought you didn't like assertions?

Quote:You have that backwards; the plate tectonic action caused the flood by pushing oceanic waters onto the continents and then caused the flood to recede due to continental upheaval back to the oceans towards the end of the flood year.

Are you taking the piss? Geomagnetic reversals are recoded in oceanic crust all over the world. In order for your insane little idea to be true, all current oceanic crust would've had to be created and all previous oceanic crust destroyed, at the same. Do you not see anything remotely retarded about that proposition?

If you seriously believe this to be true, I have three questions:

1. Where is the evidence for this?
   
2. Why do the geomagnetic reversals either side of the mid-atlantic ridge mirror each other?
   
3. Have you ever considered seeing a psychiatrist?
   

(October 28, 2013 at 8:48 pm)orogenicman Wrote: Oh really? In what peer reviewed scientific journals are these creationists publishing their work? More importantly, in what laboratories are they conducting their experiments?

Creationist research on C14 retention in diamonds and coal was published in the Transactions of the American Geophysical Union Issue 84. Ouweneel had his work on developmental anomalies in fruit flies published in Advances in Genetics Issue 16. Frair had his work on turtle systematics and serology published in numerous journals including, Journal of Herpetology, Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology, Science, and Herpetologica. Scherer's work on basic functional states in the evolution of light-driven cyclic electron transport was published in the Journal of Theoretical Biology issue 104. Lambert’s work on enzymic editing mechanisms and the origin of biological information transfer was published by the Journal of Theoretical Biology Issue 107. Humphreys’ work on comparing experimental results and calculated detector responses for PBFAII thermal source experiments was published in Review of Scientific Instruments Issue 63; his work on Uranium logging with prompt fission neutrons was also published in the International Journal of Applied Radiation and Isotopes Issue 34. Humphrey’s also had work on the 1/γ velocity dependence of nucleon-nucleus optical potentials published in Nuclear Physics Issue A182. Gentry’s work on microscopic coloration halos produced by the radioactive decay of primordial polonium was published in Science, Nature, and the Journal of Geophysical Research.

(October 28, 2013 at 9:00 pm)Doubting Thomas Wrote: I stand by my statement because I still see the "speed of light changing drastically" idea thrown around by creationists. It was your assertion that nobody uses that argument, period, not that nobody uses it any more. Can you be 100% certain that no creationist anywhere uses that argument at all? You're just trying to weasel out of being wrong (yet again).

I see you seem to have a very limited understanding of past tense and present tense verbs. You can find astrophysicists today who argue for a steady state Universe, but they are in such a minority today that claiming, “secular astrophysicists believe in a steady state Universe” would be a disingenuous mischaracterization of secular physics. This is no different than claiming, “Creationists argue for C-decay”. None of the major creationist organizations argue for C-decay, that’s a fact. I caught you being disingenuous in your quotations and quoting irrelevant sources. If you want to waste your time arguing against C-decay be my guest, but it’s obvious you only do it because you cannot argue against what creationists actually believe today.

Quote: The fact is that it's just yet another of many unproven hypotheses which creationists have invented and then spread around as fact and only discarded after they realized how foolish they looked espousing it as fact. Look at all the nonsense ideas that Kent Hovind dreamed up and which are now no longer considered good arguments by YEC's.

So you are conceding that creationists relinquish bad arguments? Nice.

(October 28, 2013 at 9:00 pm)Zazzy Wrote: Well, if you show me only one, I'll have to retract the claim that they don't do ANY of their own research, although one paper against thousands is pretty weak. But when I enter a new field, I (like most people, I think) like to get a good overview of it. I don't think any scientific field could provide you with one paper and say you had a good understanding of that field. I could start giving you an idea of the current state of many fields with about 10 good current papers. If you can't do it, OK.

I listed a few above. They actually have thousands of peer-reviewed articles that have been published in their own peer-review system, but I know that you will arbitrarily discount those journals so I presented only secular journals. Are there any evolutionists who have published worked in creation peer-reviewed journals?

Quote:I guess it was this quote, from your post #48, which "got me so off topic":

Quote:How do you know that it is the appearance of design that is the illusion and not the natural selection mechanism that is the illusion?

Did you mean something different? If so, then say so.

I was not making a point about anything creationists believe; I was making a general point about allowing for illusions in science. Once you are allowed to discount evidence as illusory, how do you then determine which evidence is genuine and which evidence is illusory? That was my point; sorry for the confusion.

Quote: And all things being equal in the primary research, this claim would have merit, as I have said.

Why do all things have to be equal in the primary research? Dawkins never asserts anything of this nature.

Quote: So is natural selection real, or does it have the appearance of design, or both? This is waffly. I think your research papers would probably help me, here, since they'll obviously propose molecular mechanisms I currently am not aware of.

Life on Earth is the result of design; much of the diversity we see in life on Earth is the result of natural selection.

Quote:Well, if it's published in a respected journal, you can be sure it has been peer-reviewed (with the exception of PNAS. I hate that about them).

Who determines whether a journal is well enough respected or not and how do they make this determination?

Quote:Not generally, although new research protocols are often published, and then immediately are tried by competitive grad students. If they don't work, the grad students get their PIs to write angry letters, and then the papers get retracted. This does happen occasionally (think the cloning scandal).

Well none of the articles I listed above were ever retracted by any of the journals they were published in.

Quote:Nope. But it's a good start when you're learning a new field. Much more reliable than anything else we've got. And since usefulness is all that matters to the grade-grubbing grad students, fraud is usually detected. Is it perfect? No. It's the best system around, though.

I do not believe this reflects the actual purpose behind the peer-review system. Some of the best science we’ve ever seen was never published by peer-reviewed journals.

Quote:I'm not sure why you included a [sic] here, since "it's" is contraction of "it is," as in "it is how most scientists do it." A correct use of "its" would be, "Look at that dog! Its hat is on backwards!"

Yup, I screwed that up, my apologies.

Quote: It's (see that? "It is" becomes "it's" with the use of an apostrophe to replace a letter!) that simple, and it's really fun.

IT’S not that simple. You’re falsely assuming that science does not have ITS own axioms. If two scientists differ on their axioms then they are incapable of merely examining the research and data and coming to a conclusion as to which side won.

Quote:I don't believe I am mischaracterizing you. I have already said that if you have one paper to show me, I will of course retract my claim that creationists do NO research.

You only said that in this response, let’s not be disingenuous here.

Quote: But that's petty given the larger concern- that scientists are entirely overlooking a rich and well-researched body of data from excellent creationist scientists, an unacceptable situation.

They’re not merely overlooking it, they are purposely censoring it (something a former managing editor of Science has admitted to in the past). There are huge moralistic and existential implications to creation research, implications that most people do not want to deal with. It is much easier to just filter it all out of the system, although as I have pointed out some of it still sneaks by the censors because creationists have their methodological ‘ducks in a row’ so to speak.

Quote: If the playing field is indeed level, then creationists must publish hundreds of primary research papers every year, so asking for ten is pretty piddly, and surely you feel (as I would) that 10 papers could never do the richness of your field justice.

There are more than ten articles published from this year, but if you are anything like other atheists on here you will discount them a priori because they are published in creation peer-reviewed journals. If you are genuinely interested in learning the material and their position then that is where you will have to look. They do not have the funding to publish numerous articles every year in secular journals. If you are merely trying to prove that creationists never get published in secular research journals then I have provided enough information to refute that claim; they in fact do.

Quote: It seems you would WANT to show me the research, if it's so convincing. Why be so resistant?

Whether or not you find something convincing is irrelevant. I think you forget that I have been on this forum for years now; I have played this game before so I am just a bit jaded. This is how it plays out everytime…

Atheist: Creationist research is never peer-reviewed
Me: Sure it is.
Atheist: Examples?
Me: Lists examples from secular journals and gives the names of the major creation peer-reviewed journals.
Atheist: Those are creation journals!
Me: Well not all of them are, but why does that matter?
Atheist: Well they are reviewed by other creationists.
Me: And secular journals are reviewed by other evolutionists, so your point is?
Atheist: I do not accept these journals.
Me: Nobody is forcing you to, but your initial claim merely said “peer-review”, not “peer-reviewed by evolutionists”.

As you can see, I have my reasons for not be very hopeful that you will be any different in this exchange. Creationists have been published in secular journals, anyone who espouses otherwise is flat out wrong. However, most of their research is published in their own peer-review system. You can reject that if you like, but I think this would be a misstep if you value intellectual honesty. I am enjoying the discussion though.

(October 29, 2013 at 6:13 am)Zen Badger Wrote: Now, you're just making shit up to defend your increasingly flimsy position.

You see, you’ve never possessed enough of a working knowledge of basic relativity to engage in this topic, that is why I cringe every time you try bringing it up, it flies right over your head every time. Physics was not my field of study, but I believe I understand the basics well enough to explain Lisle’s position. If we stipulate the current Einstein Synchrony Convention, the rate at which clocks tick is dependent upon their velocity. This means that two people who are moving at different velocities but are at the same position in space will witness the same event happening at two different times. This is something that is stipulated by us, it is not a necessary property of nature itself. Using this convention, we see the delay concerning the moons of Jupiter we see because the speed of light is uniform in all directions regardless of one’s position. If we stipulate an Anisotropic Synchrony Convention (notice these are merely conventions, they are stipulated by us), clocks will tick at different rates when they are at different positions. This means that the speed of light is dependent upon the observer’s position rather than their velocity. This means we are observing the delay concerning the moons of Jupiter because they are changing position thus making time pass differently, rather than because the light has to transverse more distance. We know that if you move a clock it will change the rate at which it ticks. The question is, is did it tick differently because of its change in velocity or did it tick different because we changed its position in space. We will never know this answer; neither explanation is more correct than the other. Lisle’s point is that if scripture’s description of creation week is using an anisotropic synchrony convention rather than an isotropic synchrony convention then nothing in scripture contradicts anything we observe in the Universe regarding the speed of light and time.

Quote: BTW, the thundering round of indifference from the astronomical and astrophysical communities would suggest that I am not alone in my dismissal of Lisles [sic] bullshit.

By the way, this is called a fallacious argument from silence.

(October 29, 2013 at 8:04 am)Optimistic Mysanthrope Wrote: Because assuming your god exists, if this method of population control is the best it can come up with, it is far from omniscient. If your god is truly both omniscient and omnipotent, then doing so would make it a petty, vindictive little shit.

He does not use it as a form of population control, that’s my entire point. Scripture never supports that notion. Death is a judgment for sin.

Quote:So how does that position take this into account?

Quote:”The way in which the universal constants are connected is only partially understood. So, the impact of a changing speed of light on the universe and life on earth is not fully known.”

Only the round-trip speed of light needs to be constant, which it still is using this convention. I appreciate the question though.

Quote:Maybe if Lyle got himself a microwave and a chocolate bar, he could try this experiment for over 11's

He could, but again that is only measuring the round-trip speed of light ( c ), which is the same using both conventions.

Quote:
I find it hard to believe you don't already know this, but here goes. Using “standard candles” (such as neutron stars, supernovae, interstellar maser emission etc...) it is possible to calculate the distance of a stellar object/galaxy/whatever. Doing a simple calculation with light speed will tell you how long it long for light to reach us from that object, and therefore give a minimum age. The further away an object is, the higher the minimum age.

Well this runs into the problem above, it does not necessarily have to take that long for light to reach us, it depends on which convention you’re stipulating. Of course stipulations cannot be used to demonstrate anything because they are man-made.

Quote: The hubble constant tells us that the universe is expanding proportional to distance. Extrapolating backwards, the universe was once smaller and more dense, therefore with higher temperatures. The CMBR discovered in 1964 by Penzias and Wilson fits the predictions made by the big bang model, so too does the star population and the chemical composition of the observable universe.

Last I was aware they were having trouble calculating a Hubble constant that made much sense or was even very consistent. Secondly, this seems to be assuming the proof by calculating the expansion back to a singularity. What are your reasons for assuming a constant expansion rate and a beginning point of zero? I grew 0.1 inches in the year between my 17th and 18th birthday, using your same assumptions I’d have to be 714 years old at that time since I am 71.5 inches tall right?

Quote: There are plenty of resources available on the internet that explain it much better than I.

I wish you could just explain it. I really hate just, “taking their word for it.”

Quote:
No. That is not the scientific method. That is the creationist method. The scientific method is to generate a hypothesis after making observations.

We’re talking past one another. Yes, sometimes the first step of the scientific method is called, “observation” and sometimes it is called “formulating a question”- either way this is not referring to the actual process of experimental inquiry. This comes after the hypothesis has been formulated.

Quote: •The scientific method is a way to ask and answer scientific questions by making observations and doing experiments.
•The steps of the scientific method are to:
◦Ask a Question
◦Do Background Research
◦Construct a Hypothesis
◦Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
◦Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
◦Communicate Your Results

- http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fa...thod.shtml

Creationists are not violating anything in the method by approaching the evidence with a hypothesis in hand. Evolutionists do the exact same thing.

Quote:It used to reliably date organic materials up to 50,000 years old (maybe more, I seem to remember reading that it can now be used up to 60,000 or so. The method isn't used to date the earth as we know itmuch older than that. However, since YEC's claim the earth is 10,000 years old or less, I deemed it relevant.

How do you know it is used to reliably date organic matter up to 50,000 years old? I am not aware of any way to empirically verify this.

Quote:I'm guessing that science was not your best subject at school.

You’d be guessing wrong. It was my field of study at University and what I do now for a living. I am merely trying to prevent you from engaging in posturing. I will ask again, why is the notion of a rapid polar reversal ridiculous? Simply because you say so?

Quote:Or English, it seems.

There’s nothing wrong with my English (although I did screw it up with one of Zazzy’s posts ). Again, just like everyone who believes the Earth is billions of years old you’re engaging in posturing. Until you demonstrate otherwise I will assume you simply cannot answer the question.

Quote:Don't be obtuse, of course it's relevant. If I don't deem something to be worthy of a response, I won't respond.

It’s not relevant in regards to the merits of our positions, which is what I am interested in. If you raised an objection to Christianity and a Christian merely answered you by saying he did not deem your objection worthy of a response you’d have an aneurism. It’s disappointing that you feel you’re justified in engaging in this sort of misbehavior now.

Quote:By tracing genetic markers. If you want more, you have the internet. Use it. Stop using me as a surrogate search engine. If you think you can refute the evidence, do so. If not, stop whining.

Unfortunately you’ve given me nothing to even refute. By tracing genetic markers? How does that demonstrate linear ancestry?

Quote:I thought you didn't like assertions?

I thought you did?

Quote:Are you taking the piss? Geomagnetic reversals are recoded in oceanic crust all over the world. In order for your insane little idea to be true, all current oceanic crust would've had to be created and all previous oceanic crust destroyed, at the same. Do you not see anything remotely retarded about that proposition?

That is true only if there are sections of the Ocean’s crust that pre-date the polar reversals that occurred during the year of the flood. Of course the evidence demonstrates that the igneous ocean crust and sediments overlying it postdate the entire continental Paleozoic sedimentary record; so we know this is not the case.

Quote: [*]Where is the evidence for this?

For what? Plate tectonics?

Quote: [*]Why do the geomagnetic reversals either side of the mid-atlantic ridge mirror each other?

I am not seeing the problem here, you’ll have to be more specific.

Quote: [*]Have you ever considered seeing a psychiatrist?

Nope, have you?

(October 29, 2013 at 7:14 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

(October 28, 2013 at 8:48 pm)orogenicman Wrote: Oh really? In what peer reviewed scientific journals are these creationists publishing their work? More importantly, in what laboratories are they conducting their experiments?

Creationist research on C14 retention in diamonds and coal was published in the Transactions of the American Geophysical Union Issue 84. Ouweneel had his work on developmental anomalies in fruit flies published in Advances in Genetics Issue 16. Frair had his work on turtle systematics and serology published in numerous journals including, Journal of Herpetology, Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology, Science, and Herpetologica. Scherer's work on basic functional states in the evolution of light-driven cyclic electron transport was published in the Journal of Theoretical Biology issue 104. Lambert’s work on enzymic editing mechanisms and the origin of biological information transfer was published by the Journal of Theoretical Biology Issue 107. Humphreys’ work on comparing experimental results and calculated detector responses for PBFAII thermal source experiments was published in Review of Scientific Instruments Issue 63; his work on Uranium logging with prompt fission neutrons was also published in the International Journal of Applied Radiation and Isotopes Issue 34. Humphrey’s also had work on the 1/γ velocity dependence of nucleon-nucleus optical potentials published in Nuclear Physics Issue A182. Gentry’s work on microscopic coloration halos produced by the radioactive decay of primordial polonium was published in Science, Nature, and the Journal of Geophysical Research.

I went through all 52 issues of volume 84 of the AGU Journal and found no such paper on C14 retention in diamonds and coal. Please provide not only the volume, but the issue as well for this alleged paper.

The only paper I found in Advances in Genetics authored by Ouweneel was this one: Developmental Genetics of Homoeosis, Willem J. Ouweneel, Volume 18, 1976, Pages 179–248, and it has nothing to do with creationism.

Frair's work (his thesis) was published in 1962, and it too has nothing to do with creationism.

Siegfried Scherer's paper cited above, Volume 104, Issue 2, 21 September 1983, Pages 289–299, concludes that "Based on our present knowledge of molecular biology and biochemistry it is concluded that the evolution of light-driven cyclic electron transport remains an unsolved problem in theoretical biology. In order to clarify the situation, further experimental work in molecular evolution urgently is needed." It makes no mention of creationism, and does not refute evolution (it doesn't even attempt to).

Grant R. Lambert' paper on Enzymic editing mechanisms and the origin of biological information transfer, Volume 107, Issue 3, 7 April 1984, Pages 387–403 concludes that "Based on present knowledge of molecular biology and biochemistry, it is concluded that the evolution of contemporary information transfer systems from primitive systems lacking such editing mechanisms remains an unsolved problem in theoretical biology." of course, like Scherer's paper, the conclusions were made in the mid-1980s. We've advanced by leaps and bounds since then. Moreover, as with Scherer's paper, this one also does not attempt to refute evolution, and certainly makes no mention of creationism.

Humphrey's published work in Review of Scientific Instruments has nothing to do with evolution or creationism. I did not find his work in International Journal of Applied Radiation and Isotopes, probably because it is friggin ancient (pre-1957), but no doubt also has nothing to do with creationism or evolution. Likewise his work on 1/γ velocity dependence of nucleon-nucleus optical potentials is irrelevant to the theory of evolution, makes no mention of the theory, and certainly doesn't offer a creationist argument.

Gentry's work on polonium halos has been widely refuted, and was about as sloppy as it gets.

Again, none of these gentlemen have published works on the (non-) theory of creationism in ANY peer reviewed scientific journal. That they have published scientific works unrelated to the theory of evolution or creationism is utterly irrelevant and is not what I asked for.

Statler Wrote:Life on Earth is the result of design; much of the diversity we see in life on Earth is the result of natural selection.

Just to be clear, natural selection is not about "intelligent design". There is nothing intelligent about placing an entertainment complex near a sewage treatment plant, nor is there anything intelligent about spina bifida.

Statler Wrote:Last I was aware they were having trouble calculating a Hubble constant that made much sense or was even very consistent. Secondly, this seems to be assuming the proof by calculating the expansion back to a singularity. What are your reasons for assuming a constant expansion rate and a beginning point of zero? I grew 0.1 inches in the year between my 17th and 18th birthday, using your same assumptions I’d have to be 714 years old at that time since I am 71.5 inches tall right?

WTF???

Statler Wrote:Creationists are not violating anything in the method by approaching the evidence with a hypothesis in hand. Evolutionists do the exact same thing.

"God did it" is not a hypothesis. It is a dogmatic statement that cannot be falsified by the scientific method.

Statler Wrote:How do you know it is used to reliably date organic matter up to 50,000 years old? I am not aware of any way to empirically verify this.

That is because you aren't a scientist and have no experience with the method. Thousands of real scientists DO have experience with it, and verify it in hundreds of laboratories worldwide every day.

Statler Wrote:Again, just like everyone who believes the Earth is billions of years old you’re engaging in posturing. Until you demonstrate otherwise I will assume you simply cannot answer the question.

No, actually, it is you who are engaging in posturing, making a claim (that the Earth is not billions of years old) without providing supporting evidence. We scientists have provided a wide range of evidence of the Earth's ancient origins (the most convincing direct evidence of which is is the Uranium/lead isotopic decay method). You simple choose to willfully ignore it.

Statler Wrote:That is true only if there are sections of the Ocean’s crust that pre-date the polar reversals that occurred during the year of the flood. Of course the evidence demonstrates that the igneous ocean crust and sediments overlying it postdate the entire continental Paleozoic sedimentary record; so we know this is not the case.

There are millions of square miles of oceanic crust that contains pole reversals that pre-date the alleged timing of the alleged Biblical flood (for which the evidence is utterly null and void). Oh and by the way, there were NO pole reversals in the last 10,000 years. The last geomagnetic pole reversal was about 780,000 years ago. A brief complete reversal, known as the Laschamp event, occurred only 41,000 years ago during the last glacial period. That reversal lasted only about 440 years with the actual change of polarity lasting around 250 years.

Yes, all of the current oceanic crust (which ranges from about 250 million years to the present) post-dates nearly all of the continental Paleozoic sedimentary record, BY DEFINITION. But there is plenty of oceanic crust in existence that pre-dates Paleozoic continental crust. The very basement rock in the Eastern U.S. and much of Canada is over a billion years, and consists of the Grenville province, which is oceanic basalt and metamorphic greenstone that has become part of the North American craton through tectonic accretion.

(October 29, 2013 at 7:14 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: He does not use it as a form of population control, that’s my entire point. Scripture never supports that notion. Death is a judgment for sin.

My bad, I must have got a bit lost when tracing the quotes back, apologies.

Quote:Only the round-trip speed of light needs to be constant, which it still is using this convention. I appreciate the question though.

Quote:Well this runs into the problem above, it does not necessarily have to take that long for light to reach us, it depends on which convention you’re stipulating. Of course stipulations cannot be used to demonstrate anything because they are man-made.

But surely that would depend entirely on how you define the 'round trip'? If you define it from emission to detection, you run into the same problem since the 'overall' speed would have to fall under the constant and whichever convention you employ, the end result would be the same. Or am I missing something?

Quote:Last I was aware they were having trouble calculating a Hubble constant that made much sense or was even very consistent. Secondly, this seems to be assuming the proof by calculating the expansion back to a singularity. What are your reasons for assuming a constant expansion rate and a beginning point of zero? I grew 0.1 inches in the year between my 17th and 18th birthday, using your same assumptions I’d have to be 714 years old at that time since I am 71.5 inches tall right?

Haha, I agree. As far as I am aware, the Redshift/Hubble constant can only lead us back to the so called 'Recombination Era' and before that is largely conjecture. I would have thought that the inflationary model would render the concept of a big bang singularity unnecessary, but I'll happily admit I'm not an expert on the matter.

(October 29, 2013 at 7:14 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

(October 29, 2013 at 8:04 am)Optimistic Mysanthrope Wrote: There are plenty of resources available on the internet that explain it much better than I.

I wish you could just explain it. I really hate just, “taking their word for it.”

It's not that at all. It generally takes a lot less time and effort to ask a question than it does to answer it. Answers generally take up a lot more words, too.

I just gave a brief explanation. If you can already refute the examples I gave, then my explaining them in greater detail would be a waste of time. If you have to look online to refute them, then you'll have to do the search anyway. Either way, it's an unnecessary use of time and effort for both of us.

Quote: We’re talking past one another. Yes, sometimes the first step of the scientific method is called, “observation” and sometimes it is called “formulating a question”- either way this is not referring to the actual process of experimental inquiry. This comes after the hypothesis has been formulated.

Fair enough

Quote:How do you know it is used to reliably date organic matter up to 50,000 years old? I am not aware of any way to empirically verify this.

One method of verifying it involves comparison with dendrochronolgy. IIRC, bristlecone pines give an unbroken record dating back 9000 years or so. Radiocarbon dating results are compared to known ages and, to the best of my knowledge, they have always proven accurate. I have yet to see a claim of inaccurate radiocarbon dating that has not been the direct result or misrepresentation and/or a deliberate attempt to deceive.

Quote:There’s nothing wrong with my English (although I did screw it up with one of Zazzy’s posts ). Again, just like everyone who believes the Earth is billions of years old you’re engaging in posturing. Until you demonstrate otherwise I will assume you simply cannot answer the question.

It's not posturing. At worst, it's laziness. A wooden ship as large as noah's ark was supposed to be (let alone the size it would have to be in order to accommodate its cargo)simply doesn't have the structural integrity required to be seaworthy. Not to mention that the ark was sealed with pitch. And according to creationists, pitch comes from the animals that were killed in the flood. A creationist continuity error? Surely not

Quote:It’s not relevant in regards to the merits of our positions, which is what I am interested in. If you raised an objection to Christianity and a Christian merely answered you by saying he did not deem your objection worthy of a response you’d have an aneurism. It’s disappointing that you feel you’re justified in engaging in this sort of misbehavior now.

If my objection to christianity was that lucy, the talking dodo had specifically told me that jesus was actually dancing caribou that tricked everyone into thinking he was god, then I think it would be perfectly reasonable for my objections to be dismissed in such a matter.

Quote:Unfortunately you’ve given me nothing to even refute. By tracing genetic markers? How does that demonstrate linear ancestry?

You must really hate search engines
how to trace mitochondrial DNA

Quote:

Quote:I thought you didn't like assertions?

I thought you did?

Touché
Though I also tried to provide details when called on it.....

Quote:That is true only if there are sections of the Ocean’s crust that pre-date the polar reversals that occurred during the year of the flood. Of course the evidence demonstrates that the igneous ocean crust and sediments overlying it postdate the entire continental Paleozoic sedimentary record; so we know this is not the case.

But that's the point, surely? The oceanic crust records geomagnetic reversals. If those records post-date the flood, then the oceanic crust must post-date the flood.

You know, I really am getting the impression that you're just taking the piss. If so, I applaud you.

Quote:

Quote: [*]Where is the evidence for this?

For what? Plate tectonics?

No, this:

(October 28, 2013 at 8:10 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: You have that backwards; the plate tectonic action caused the flood by pushing oceanic waters onto the continents and then caused the flood to recede due to continental upheaval back to the oceans towards the end of the flood year.

Quote:

Quote: [*]Why do the geomagnetic reversals either side of the mid-atlantic ridge mirror each other?

I am not seeing the problem here, you’ll have to be more specific.

The "theory" I saw, involving rapid magnetic reversals in ferromagnetic rock, only really managed to demonstrate the phenomena on a very small scale. The mid-ocean ridges have near symmetrical reversals throughout their entire length.

Quote:

Quote: [*]Have you ever considered seeing a psychiatrist?

Nope, have you?

Yes. They weren't very good.