By the way, old warped one if the speed of light was instantaneous, you would not be able to see it because it would have no wavelength, and no frequency, and so there would be no evidence that it even existed.

(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?

Old Earth creationists are somewhat less ignorant than YECs, although their dissonance may be greater.

Your misinterpretations of relativity are absurd.
You completely misunderstand that it is the speed of light that is a constant, the same for all frames of reference, all observers.

Quote:In physics, special relativity (SR, also known as the special theory of relativity or STR) is the accepted physical theory regarding the relationship between space and time. It is based on two postulates: (1) that the laws of physics are invariant (i.e., identical) in all inertial systems (non-accelerating frames of reference); and (2) that the speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers, regardless of the motion of the light source.

the yec have to go through all sorts of machinations to fit science with their total dedication to an always literal interpretation of scripture. for instance, they believe that the 2'nd law of themo. (entropy) took effect after adam's fall. however, scripture makes it clear that the laws of physics have been unchanged since the U's beginning (God thru his prophet jeremiah say the laws governing the heavens and earth are "fixed" from the beginning). biblical passages affirms that starlight, adam's human work, and food metabloism was in effect before adam's sin; none of which would be possible without heat transfer.

(February 11, 2014 at 9:20 pm)snowtracks Wrote: the yec have to go through all sorts of machinations to fit science with their total dedication to an always literal interpretation of scripture.

Statler has a point, though. Why would a Christian reject a young earth in favor of scientific evidence that claims differently, yet accept Biblical claims that science either cannot confirm or considers impossible?

Welcome back, Stat. Glad to hear that the surgery went well.

I actually find it odd, but I agree with Waldorf. OEC is not substantially less ridiculous than YEC and it requires making up a lot more shit to make all the made-up shit make any sense. YECs stick rigidly to their bullshit and are much more consistent in their denial of reality.

Among lots of other drivel,(tl;dr)

(February 14, 2014 at 10:18 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Really? What evidence is there that a virgin can give birth?

Happens all the time. Technology has moved past the bronze age.

per google's dictionary
vir·gin
ˈvərjən/
noun
noun: virgin; plural noun: virgins
1.
a person, typically a woman, who has never had sexual intercourse.

Also from google's dictionary
ar·ti·fi·cial in·sem·i·na·tion
noun
1.
the injection of semen into the vagina or uterus other than by sexual intercourse.

Most of the milk supplied in American markets comes from virgin cows who have calved and freshened without intercourse.
Virgin birth isn't so hard to replicate these days. I am interested in the semantic gymnastics you have to offer to explain how this simple and obvious fact is somehow in error. I don't expect it to change your arbitrary, axiomatic presuppositions.
Maybe no woman has ever been artificially inseminated without having somehow first been fucked?

warped one Wrote:I do not have to do any twisting because you just do not understand what you’re talking about. Under this system light moving tangentially to the observer moves at c (cθ = c/(1-cos(θ)), where θ = 0 indicates the direction directly toward the observer.); so the experiment proves nothing because you’d get those exact same results under either system. Additionally, the experiment is using information derived from two-way speed experiments and is therefore begging the question in regards to the isotropy of the one-way speed of light.

warped one Wrote:You’re begging the question yet again, how do you know light requires a wavelength and frequency in order to be seen?

You no doubt made those responses with a straight face. (grins)

You should take a closer look at your math.

I (a board member of one of the oldest astronomical societies in the U.S.) don't know what I'm talking about with respect to light? (grins again).

If light had no wavelength or frequency, there would be no electromagnetic spectrum, indeed there would be no universe. If light had no wavelength or frequency, most atomic phenomenae would not occur, and we would not even exist. Visually, light has to be at a specific range of frequencies and wavelengths in order to be seen by human eyes. You didn't know this? Huh.

Quote:Electromagnetic radiation with a wavelength between 380 nm and 760 nm (400–790 terahertz) is detected by the human eye and perceived as visible light. Other wavelengths, especially near infrared (longer than 760 nm) and ultraviolet (shorter than 380 nm) are also sometimes referred to as light, especially when the visibility to humans is not relevant. White light is a combination of lights of different wavelengths in the visible spectrum. Passing white light through a prism splits it up into the several colors of light observed in the visible spectrum between 400 nm and 780 nm.
If radiation having a frequency in the visible region of the EM spectrum reflects off an object, say, a bowl of fruit, and then strikes our eyes, this results in our visual perception of the scene. Our brain's visual system processes the multitude of reflected frequencies into different shades and hues, and through this insufficiently-understood psychophysical phenomenon, most people perceive a bowl of fruit.
At most wavelengths, however, the information carried by electromagnetic radiation is not directly detected by human senses

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagn...28light.29

For light to be perceived it must have very precise and well understood properties which would make this instantaneous movement thing so laughably stupid it if it wasn't so sad.

And Waldorks instantaneous light propagation is disproven by the phenomonen of red shift.( the discovery that showed the universe was expanding)

Because if it were instantaneous then red shift couldn't occur.