The universe appears "old", but it is still less than 10,000 years old

[Zen Badger]

Ah Statler, still an overly verbose liar for Jesus I see.

Ah Zen, still lying about me being a liar I see. What are you going to do though? When you’re beat you’re beat.

How's the ol' anisotropic light propagation thingy going for you buddy

Still going strong, did you finally understand it?

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.
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.

The "theory" goes like this. Since it impossible to accurately measure the one way speed of light because of relativistic effects, the only way to to do it is to bounce light off a reflector and divide the result by two.
Lisle uses this to claim that light travelling away from Earth travels at half c while lightspeed travelling towards Earth is at infinite velocity.
Thereby using the loophole that you can't "know" for certain that light is travelling at the same speed to and from the reflector.

The theory overlooks one minor(glaring) problem however.

It used to be thought that lightspeed was infinite, because of course we had no way of determining otherwise.
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.
Light coming towards Earth.

Incidentally, destroying Lisles "theory" centuries before it was even postulated.

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.

[Optimistic Mysanthrope]

Because of supporting evidence that stands up to rigorous scrutiny. "Darwinists" have creationists don't.

Such as?

CMBR, redshift, extrapolation using 'standard candles' and light speed, chemical composition and star populations. How's that to get you started?
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.

Actually the mechanism was first proposed by Blyth in 1835, who was a creationist- so by accepting the mechanism creationists are admitting that one of their own was right. Additionally, admitting that Darwin was right about a few things does not require a person to admit he was right about everything.

Well if you want to get into seniority for the idea, you can go back at least to the 9th century with Al-Jahiz.

Thanks, but that does not tell me why you think you have a reasonable basis for believing what you believe.

Again, the evidence supports it.

I thought we were talking about the age of the Earth and Cosmos? Radiocarbon dating cannot be used to date either so why are we now talking about radiocarbon dating? Not only this, but you have not told me how they have proven that carbon dating is accurate (addressing objections to the dating method does not prove the method itself is accurate), which seemed to be your initial assertion.

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

And apologies, I should have worded it differently. Every doubt cast upon those methods has been shown to be unfounded.

It was your claim; I was merely expecting you to back it up with at least something. You do not have to list all of the evidence, you could give me your best few lines of evidence; if they are really so compelling then that should more than suffice.

Um....every dating method we have? Such as:

• U-Pb dating
  
• Ar-ar dating
  
• C14 dating
  
• Geological record
  
• Genetic divergence
  

Really? I would love to know what they've come up with for that one

Is this where I am supposed to pull a play from your playbook and tell you to Google it?

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

So I will assume that you cannot refute those points since you did not even try to.

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

You cannot tell me why?

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

10,000 years doesn't even account for when man evolved into man.... he was still primitive at that point.

You know this how?

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

They're also the same ones who claim that the speed of light changed between 6,000 years ago supposedly when the universe was created and now. It's nothing more than goalpost shifting, and they know there's no way to disprove it (or prove it, but they're not concerned with that).

They do not claim this either. I really wish you guys would actually learn the material before trying to address it.

Really? try here

[Owlix]

What so many people do not realize is that old earth/universe advocates only have five to twelve pieces of evidence that they say may be used to suggest that the earth/universe are old.

....
...

Face


Palm.

[KichigaiNeko]

What so many people do not realize is that old earth/universe advocates only have five to twelve pieces of evidence that they say may be used to suggest that the earth/universe are old.

....
...

Face


Palm.

Agreed Owlix

[Owlix]

Ack. Stupidity make Alex mad
make alex act like caveman

alex want to smash computer

alex want smash


ALEX SMASH!!!!


Seriously though don't read the article if you you're susceptible to stupid. Or to violent outbursts.

[Doubting Thomas]

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.
Light coming towards Earth.

Incidentally, destroying Lisles "theory" centuries before it was even postulated.

No, you didn't factor in "Goddidit."

[Thor]

The generally accepted creation position on continental drift is that the majority of it took place as a runaway mechanism during the year of the flood.

And your evidence for this position is.....? 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?

[Zen Badger]

The generally accepted creation position on continental drift is that the majority of it took place as a runaway mechanism during the year of the flood.

And your evidence for this position is.....? 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?

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.

[downbeatplumb]

The generally accepted creation position on continental drift is that the majority of it took place as a runaway mechanism during the year of the flood.

And your evidence for this position is.....? 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?

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

[freedomfromforum]

What's the big deal? I had a girlfriend who appeared "young", but was in fact a 10,000 year old hag. Shit happens.