The Statler Waldorf Balcony

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

It's getting really tough to reply to your posts because you keep asserting I disagree with things that I never said I did, and actually pointed out that I do agree wtih. Light moves isotrpically when using the calculated definition of time, we all know this so stop trying to argue this point. Using the observational definition of time it moves an-isotropically, stop trying to use relativity and textbooks to agrue against this because they all use calculated time. The Bible is written using the observational definiton of time, so I am going to view light as propagating using this definition, this is not an erroneous thing to do, as long as I am clear as to which definition I am using.

So it's not so much a scientific theory as much as it is a pseudoscience explaination (what I affectionately refer to as "bullshit") for a young universe because no matter how you slice it, light has always moved at 299,792,458 meters per second - anywhere, at any time, by any method of measurement.
I've never heard of 'observational' time and 'calculated' time as being two distinct things until I started this conversation with you and I have no reason to believe it is anything except a way to explain how light can do something contrary to observation and study to explain how several major branches of science (astronomy and physics) are wrong so young-earths can have a scientific-sounding way to explain their inane worldview.

I think I already pointed out why pointing to annual tree rings is not an appropriate means of disproving the time of the flood, I think most scientists with a knowledge of dendrochronology would agree with me. So you will have to try and find some other evidence.

As you should recall from reading the post you responded to, we weren't discussing the flood.
Most scientists with a knowledge of dendrochronology aren't creationists, so no, the wouldn't agree with you (and yes, there are statistics on that you'll no doubt ignore.)

Reasons the flood cannot happen:
1) NOT ENOUGH WATER on the entire planet to cover all land.
2) The Ark, as described in the bible, can not support all life on earth for any length of time
3) Fossil record does not support a flood
4) Trees and other creatures that could not have survived a worldwide flood are still around

...I could keep going until my eyes turn blue from looking at the screen but that's what I got off the top of my head, but I'll just finish this thought by statig that there would be some evidence that a flood covered the whole planet.
... or plate with a crytal dome over it. Whichever the case may be, after all, things look a little distorted on my corner of the world.

I have not posted a lot of articles (though most of my info does come out of peer-reviewed sources) because they are not written for the lay person. So it's much more effective to summarize the article than just to post the link (as if posting a link proves anything).

I call Bullshit. I eat through scientific journals, books, and media out of boredom. I'm certainly not afraid of looking at the an-istrotropic light horoscope from the alchemy daily.
I'm not even going to start on the hypocracy over denigrating me over using youtube and wikipedia but failing to provide even a link to a ridiculously biased paper by a creationist who wants to prove creationism and not actually do science.

You will have to take up the alleged dating mistakes made in the lab with the actual secular labs that dated the material. All I know is that radio-metric and radiocarbon methods disagree quite often. Just recently a piece of mineralized wood was found in sandstone that geologically dated to 250 million years but the piece of wood dated to around 35,000 years. Sounds like something has got to give to me.

Why would they date the rock to determine the age of the wood or vice versa?
It sounds to me like you want them to disagree - to say nothing over the fact that they don't.