Young Earth Creationism Vs. Science (Statler Waldorf Contd)

[Zen Badger]

Well so much for being cordial eh? That's too bad; I was kind of starting to like you Zen.

Should I be upset? I'll try it and let you know how I go.

I am actually getting bored with the topic because nobody on here even understands it (I think because they have not read the actual article but rather articles written by others who don't understand it). So it's not unlike trying to debate the greatest quarterback of all time with a bunch of people who don't know what a football is.

The only one who doesn't understand it is you.

Your argument is just fundamentally flawed, it would be like saying, "light can't move at different rates through different substances because that would violate "c" as being a constant!" [quote]
This has nothing to do with what I'm talking about
[quote] C is a constant because it is the average speed at which light moves in a vacuum in a round trip.

Apparently you don't even know what the difference between a "constant" and an "average" is.

Like I said, you don't even need to use synchrony convention to measure the value of "c", so why you would try and use this to argue against different conventions is beyond me. I suggest you actually read the articles on ASC because every single issue that has been raised against it is addressed in the actual literature.

I have, though oddly enough I can't find Lisle's original paper, even though he said he would submit it to peer review. I did though find this on his blog http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/...n-genesis/

Scientific research takes time—a lot of time. A full-time research scientist might spend half a year or more working on a particular project, in order to write one technical paper about it. But that’s the way it has to be. Research must be thorough and rigorous; otherwise we may overlook an important fact that disproves the hypothesis in question. Peer review is just as important for the same reason. When other qualified scientists with a correct biblical worldview offer constructive criticism, it can be very helpful in refining an article or technical paper.

Well yes, that would be a unbiased peer review wouldn't it...........

As to your point about Nuclear Physicists, their observations would be exactly the same under the ASC as they are under the ESC because the linear term in the time-dilation formula is not negligible under ASC like it is under ESC. This means we make the same observations under both conventions, just for different reasons, this is why they are called conventions and not theories. However, questioning my science credentials goes to show just how misinformed you really are.

But I'm not talking about observations, I'm talking about the calculations that require c to be a constant, that wouldn't work if it was an average, and yet, strangly enough do work.

Another consequence of Lisles "theory" is that it requires the Earth to be the centre of the universe, which isn't borne out by any observations at all.
P.s if light arrives at Earth instantaneously how do you explain red shift.

As to your scientific credentials, since you appear willing to embrace a half arsed theory that requires 95% of accepted Physics to be tossed out because it looks like it will validate your little creation fantasy,
I think they should be questioned.