Young Earth Creationism Vs. Science (Statler Waldorf Contd)

[Zen Badger]

[quote='Statler Waldorf' pid='117744' dateline='1297735260']

---

[quote] Non answer.
Yes, a supernova occurs every 25 years on average, but you have failed to address the fact that it takes a star millions of years to arrive at the supernova stage.
Fail. [/quote]

---

[quote]
I thought it was quite obvious that not all the stars were created at the same level of maturity (can’t think of a reason as to why they would be actually). Guess that’s what I get for assuming huh?
[/quote]What a lame argument, because they're new, why else. Or is this another demonstration of god as a pathological liar?
[quote]
You still can’t explain why there are zero observable state three remnants, fail. [/quote]
Because they have dissipated below the minimum observable limit, just like a cloud of smoke will.(Gee, that was hard)

---

[quote] In the absence of a viable mechanism for how ASC works it is more than personal opinion. [/quote]

---

[quote]
Well the math works completely fine with ASC [/quote]
What maths? This answer does not give the mechanism BTW
[quote]
and isotropic propagation of light is by no means a necessity of nature, so I guess it really was just your opinion. [/quote]
Try calculating E=mc2 without lightspeed as a constant

---

[quote] Citations please or I'm calling bullshit on this one. [/quote]

---

[quote]
Relativity: The special and general Theory By Albert Einstein[/quote]
Which bits specifically?

---

[quote] Since you have yet to prove that god even exists, saying that colliding galaxies are evidence of his glory can only be idle speculation on your part. All the available evidence actually indicates a random, uncaring universe so I have no requirement to demonstrate that they don't serve a purpose. [/quote]

---

[quote]
Since God’s existence was what we were talking about this of course is a circular argument, I suggest you either rephrase it or don’t use it.

A: God does not exist because colliding galaxies serve no purpose so why would he create them?
Question: How do you know they serve no purpose?
B: Well since God does not exist, they are obviously just random events.
[/quote]
Well that makes no sense at all.

---

[quote] Just made me LOL.

As to the observer holding the mirror, according to ASC the beam of light departs the emitter at half c, strikes the mirror and returns at infinite velocity. Yet, also according to ASC the observer should see that light beam coming towards them at infinite velocity then departing at half c , so the light beam is simultaneously travelling at two different velocities. And that is without considering the fact that it violates the law regarding conservation of energy and most known physics.

So even if Einstein did initially consider ASC, it is very easy to see why he would have rejected it [/quote]

---

[quote]
I figured someone would get a kick out of that. My humor is not completely wasted on here.

Again you are thinking too much in classic Newtonian physics and not in relativistic physics. Since it is impossible to synchronize the two clocks at observer A and B, according to observer B’s clock the light will arrive instantaneously at observer B and moves away from observer A at 0.5C according to observer A’s clock. The math works perfectly actually, and this is why Einstein was originally going to use an ASC.

[/quote]

Ohh look!! E=mc2...... Guess the math for ASC don't work all that good after all.