The Statler Waldorf Balcony

[orogenicman]

Statler Waldorf Wrote:
Ok, all of the views on the isotropic propagation of light use the Calculated Definition of Time. This is a viewponit of time that did not come about until the early 20th century (maybe late 19th). So scripture does not use this definition of time, it uses the observational definition of time. Under this definition of time light does move an-isotropically. So we are not playing with the speed of light so much as we are just defining time differently. So if all the light beams for the stars reached Earth on the 4th day of creation, this would mean that God created these stars on the 4th day. Even though, by using the calculated definition of time He would have created those same stars a longer period of time ago depending on how many light years the object is away from Earth. Scientists today will still jump back and forth between the two defintions of time, when naming cosmic events they use observed time (supernova 1987a), when you ask them when they believe the event "really" took place they will use the calcuated definition of time. So to argue against the Biblical account of creation with the calculated definition of time is in error because the account is not written using that definition of time. Does that make more sense?

What utter crap. As I pointed out, science uses the operational definition of time, as does THE REST OF THE PLANET. Making up your own definitions (which are actually not yours, but those created by the religious folk at Answers in Genesis, though you never cited them as your source) to fit your goofy world view only makes your goofy world view appear, well, even more goofy. At least 99.99% of the world's scientists accept the current definition of the veolocity of light as being the correct one. An so you would have us believe that the nut cases at the Creation Museum are right while the rest of the world is wrong. That makes you, sir, a crackpot. Congratulations.