Waldorf say it ain't so. Surely you're not genuinely a young earther. I have to believe you just like yanking chains and adding finesse to positions which are really beneath you.

Wait. I've got it. You play a Christian on AF.org but really you are a devil's advocate.

(February 6, 2014 at 9:02 pm)whateverist Wrote: Waldorf say it ain't so. Surely you're not genuinely a young earther. I have to believe you just like yanking chains and adding finesse to positions which are really beneath you.

Wait. I've got it. You play a Christian on AF.org but really you are a devil's advocate.

If I believed the Bible was the word of God as Christians do, why would I not be?

Additionally, do you respect Old-Earth Christians more or less than Young-Earth Christians and why?

(February 6, 2014 at 9:02 pm)whateverist Wrote: Waldorf say it ain't so. Surely you're not genuinely a young earther. I have to believe you just like yanking chains and adding finesse to positions which are really beneath you.

Wait. I've got it. You play a Christian on AF.org but really you are a devil's advocate.

What caused you to think wardork has the band width to yank anyone's chain?

(February 6, 2014 at 9:11 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: If I believed the Bible was the word of God as Christians do, why would I not be?

That's an answer with a lot of wriggle room.

Quote:Additionally, do you respect Old-Earth Christians more or less than Young-Earth Christians and why?

Why would an atheist not respect old earthers more than young earthers? The former has at least made an attempt to do something that, generally speaking, agnostic atheism is in favor of; modulating their beliefs to fit the available evidence. The fact that they've done so imperfectly doesn't detract from their effort.

Granted, one might see it as inconsistent, but that really depends on where you're coming from; if you have a position you've taken to be the ideal one, and any deviation from that represents a contradiction or weakness of belief, then yeah, it's inconsistent. If your only wish is to best align your beliefs with the facts, regardless of what they are, then it's just forward progress.

(February 6, 2014 at 9:11 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

(February 6, 2014 at 9:02 pm)whateverist Wrote: Waldorf say it ain't so. Surely you're not genuinely a young earther. I have to believe you just like yanking chains and adding finesse to positions which are really beneath you.

Wait. I've got it. You play a Christian on AF.org but really you are a devil's advocate.

If I believed the Bible was the word of God as Christians do, why would I not be?

Additionally, do you respect Old-Earth Christians more or less than Young-Earth Christians and why?

If you believe the bible is the word of god then you simply have a low threshold for belief. Certainly your perogative though. We all make do with less than certainty everyday.

I respect old-earth Christian's ability to judge the evidence more than I do the YEC's.

(February 6, 2014 at 8:57 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

(January 16, 2014 at 12:36 pm)Chas Wrote: So your basic premise is that the speed of light is entirely dependent on an observer?

It’s not my premise; it’s a stipulation of the convention. Under either convention it’s completely dependent upon the observer, in this one it’s the observer’s position in the isotropic convention it’s the observer’s velocity. Neither is more correct than the other.

Quote: What is the speed of light without an observer?

Where at and measured how?

Quote: N.B. You are utterly misinterpreting special relativity.

Even though I quoted from Einstein’s work that explicitly agrees with me? Nice try.

(January 16, 2014 at 1:49 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: Why would light travel instantly in one direction and at light speed in the other?

It doesn’t, it travels at 1/2 experimental c in the opposite direction. All of relativity is counterintuitive.

You are making inferences that are not supported by relativity. You really do misunderstand it.

I wonder how he gets around the mass->speed and speed -> ruler problems of infinite speed considering lorentz doesn't negate them

warped one claimed Wrote:That’s measuring the round-trip speed of light which nobody here is disputing. I cannot believe I wasted seven minutes watching that

Wrong. It is measuring the speed of light independently of distance traveled by measuring it's wavelength and multiplying the result by its frequency. If it was a two-way measurement and one-way was different from the other, you would have two different wavelengths. The fact that we only see one wavelength demonstrates not only the isotropic nature of light, but that the speed of light that is conventionally use in ALL OF PHYSICS is correct. And that means that no matter how you try to twist the laws of physics, you will never get a 10,000 year old universe out of one that is 13.7 billion years old.

There is really no fundamental difference between creationism and the idea that our brains were built five minutes ago with memories that deceive us into thinking we have past experiences. Actually, creationism is a lot more retarded.

(February 6, 2014 at 8:57 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: 1. Variable light speeds do not prove the Universe is 6,000 years old; they merely demonstrate that distant starlight in no way proves it is older than 6,000 years.

If only you had some observational calculations to back up that extreme minority viewpoint

Quote:2. What on Earth makes you think the Nobel committee does not have their personal biases? That’s laughable.

Everyone has biases, in the same way that you will always flat-out reject all evidence based approaches to everything because you have a pre-determined, biblical based outlook regarding the planet and the universe. Nobel prize judges would simply want to see some studies and/or calculations, neither of which I expect you'll ever actually generate. Maybe you could go for the Templeton prize though, you tick all the boxes for dogmatic devotion to the progression of bollocks all.

Quote:No, I merely managed to comprehend it.

Like when you generated 'deductive proof' of god that was acknowledged by absolutely nobody ever. Seriously, if you write a critical thinking textbook I will buy it and add it to my collection, none of the existing textbooks contain the deductively sound case for god so there's a juicy gap in the market. Right-wing American christian cranks are adept at marrying venture capitalism with religious dogma, go for it mate, do it for the children.

Quote:I do not know the exact age, but I know a very narrow range.

Sweet as, results please. We'll just need to get it peer reviewed and then we can go get you that nobel prize, yuk yuk.