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

[Statler Waldorf]

If you count on the buffoon [sic] being sensible enough to retreat from claiming of light move at different speed when moving towards him, when he has no direct evidence of what light speed actually is in the specific case when it is when moving at him, and is confronted by mountains of evidence that the speed of light is always the same in the general case of it moving in every other direction, then you did not account for the fact this is no mere ordinary buffoon [sic], but one so outstandingly [sic] yodelish that he adopted himself to "reformed" christianity without, presumably, a lobotomy.

I assume you meant bafoon? It is hard to take you seriously when you do not even have the intellectual fortitude to correctly spell your personal attacks. You believe that light propagates at different speeds relevant to observers moving at different velocities I am merely taking the position that it propagates at different speeds for observers at different positions. One is no weirder than the other; relativity is just counterintuitive at times. The problem is that you insist on adhering to a purely Newtonian understanding of such things.

[ablenova]

Albert Mohler is the president of the Southern Baptist Seminary in Louisville Kentucky. He is a Young Earth Creationist, however he does not deny that the universe appears to be old. However since he believes the universe is less than say 10,000 years old. So Mohler argues that either god created the universe to appear "old" or that the "fall" rapidly aged the universe.

A Christian Fundamentalist friend of mine, who admitted that he leans to a "six day" creation position thought Mohler's argument was appealing.

Essentially this speech he gave to a ministry conference outlines his argument.

Transcript in this link below.

http://biologos.org/resources/albert-moh...ook-so-old

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_Wi5OYZ7Ks

One caveat of the "six day" reading is the fact that the first 2 days took place without the sun, moon, or stars. We understand evening and morning to correspond to the angular relationship between the sun and the earth. So I think the question has been raised as to whether the "days" of Genesis 1 correspond to earth days or another unit.

[Chas]

If you count on the buffoon [sic] being sensible enough to retreat from claiming of light move at different speed when moving towards him, when he has no direct evidence of what light speed actually is in the specific case when it is when moving at him, and is confronted by mountains of evidence that the speed of light is always the same in the general case of it moving in every other direction, then you did not account for the fact this is no mere ordinary buffoon [sic], but one so outstandingly [sic] yodelish that he adopted himself to "reformed" christianity without, presumably, a lobotomy.

I assume you meant bafoon. It is hard to take you seriously when you do not even have the intellectual fortitude to correctly spell your personal attacks. You believe that light propagates at different speeds relevant to observers moving at different velocities I am merely taking the position that it propagates at different speeds for observers at different positions. One is no weirder than the other; relativity is just counterintuitive at times. The problem is that you insist on adhering to a purely Newtonian understanding of such things.

No, he meant 'buffoon'. 'Bafoon' is not a word.

You are truly ignorant. The speed of light in a vacuum is invariant. It does not change - the observer's perception changes.

[Statler Waldorf]

No, he meant 'buffoon'. 'Bafoon' is not a word.

Actually I could not tell what he meant. I have heard of the slang term "bafoon" (UrbanDictionary.com) so that is what I assumed he meant. Either way he needs to get his act together before trying to insult others because it just makes him look like a....well....buffoon.

The speed of light in a vacuum is invariant.

Assertion, demonstration needed.

[Lion IRC]

The speed of light in a vacuum is invariant. It does not change - the observer's perception changes.

[Esquilax]

What a cogent and well thought out response, Lion. You sure came out of this exchange as the intellectual superior, with your quick wit and sharp insight into physics, amply demonstrated with your post.

[Anomalocaris]

With peers like wordork and he must try very hard to stay in the game.

[Chas]

No, he meant 'buffoon'. 'Bafoon' is not a word.

Actually I could not tell what he meant. I have heard of the slang term "bafoon" (UrbanDictionary.com) so that is what I assumed he meant. Either way he needs to get his act together before trying to insult others because it just makes him look like a....well....buffoon.

The speed of light in a vacuum is invariant.

Assertion, demonstration needed.

Do you even Google?

Michelson-Morley, Special Relativity, ...

[Statler Waldorf]

What a cogent and well thought out response, Lion. You sure came out of this exchange as the intellectual superior, with your quick wit and sharp insight into physics, amply demonstrated with your post.

I wish I had a dollar every time one of you responded to one of my posts in that same fashion; I would be a wealthy man.

With peers like wordork and he must try very hard to stay in the game.

This sentence makes no sense.

Do you even Google?

Michelson-Morley, Special Relativity, ...

The Michelson-Morley experiments were dealing with the proposed luminiferous aether and not with the one-way speed of light. With the advent of relativity we now know that it is impossible to measure the one-way speed of light and that a position dependent system can be stipulated.

[Lion IRC]

What a cogent and well thought out response, Lion. You sure came out of this exchange as the intellectual superior, with your quick wit and sharp insight into physics, amply demonstrated with your post.

Relax Pal!
You don't even know what I was laughing at.