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

[Statler Waldorf]

Oh really? In what peer reviewed scientific journals are these creationists publishing their work? More importantly, in what laboratories are they conducting their experiments?

Creationist research on C14 retention in diamonds and coal was published in the Transactions of the American Geophysical Union Issue 84. Ouweneel had his work on developmental anomalies in fruit flies published in Advances in Genetics Issue 16. Frair had his work on turtle systematics and serology published in numerous journals including, Journal of Herpetology, Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology, Science, and Herpetologica. Scherer's work on basic functional states in the evolution of light-driven cyclic electron transport was published in the Journal of Theoretical Biology issue 104. Lambert’s work on enzymic editing mechanisms and the origin of biological information transfer was published by the Journal of Theoretical Biology Issue 107. Humphreys’ work on comparing experimental results and calculated detector responses for PBFAII thermal source experiments was published in Review of Scientific Instruments Issue 63; his work on Uranium logging with prompt fission neutrons was also published in the International Journal of Applied Radiation and Isotopes Issue 34. Humphrey’s also had work on the 1/γ velocity dependence of nucleon-nucleus optical potentials published in Nuclear Physics Issue A182. Gentry’s work on microscopic coloration halos produced by the radioactive decay of primordial polonium was published in Science, Nature, and the Journal of Geophysical Research.

I stand by my statement because I still see the "speed of light changing drastically" idea thrown around by creationists. It was your assertion that nobody uses that argument, period, not that nobody uses it any more. Can you be 100% certain that no creationist anywhere uses that argument at all? You're just trying to weasel out of being wrong (yet again).

I see you seem to have a very limited understanding of past tense and present tense verbs. You can find astrophysicists today who argue for a steady state Universe, but they are in such a minority today that claiming, “secular astrophysicists believe in a steady state Universe” would be a disingenuous mischaracterization of secular physics. This is no different than claiming, “Creationists argue for C-decay”. None of the major creationist organizations argue for C-decay, that’s a fact. I caught you being disingenuous in your quotations and quoting irrelevant sources. If you want to waste your time arguing against C-decay be my guest, but it’s obvious you only do it because you cannot argue against what creationists actually believe today.

The fact is that it's just yet another of many unproven hypotheses which creationists have invented and then spread around as fact and only discarded after they realized how foolish they looked espousing it as fact. Look at all the nonsense ideas that Kent Hovind dreamed up and which are now no longer considered good arguments by YEC's.

So you are conceding that creationists relinquish bad arguments? Nice.

Well, if you show me only one, I'll have to retract the claim that they don't do ANY of their own research, although one paper against thousands is pretty weak. But when I enter a new field, I (like most people, I think) like to get a good overview of it. I don't think any scientific field could provide you with one paper and say you had a good understanding of that field. I could start giving you an idea of the current state of many fields with about 10 good current papers. If you can't do it, OK.

I listed a few above. They actually have thousands of peer-reviewed articles that have been published in their own peer-review system, but I know that you will arbitrarily discount those journals so I presented only secular journals. Are there any evolutionists who have published worked in creation peer-reviewed journals?

I guess it was this quote, from your post #48, which "got me so off topic":

How do you know that it is the appearance of design that is the illusion and not the natural selection mechanism that is the illusion?

Did you mean something different? If so, then say so.

I was not making a point about anything creationists believe; I was making a general point about allowing for illusions in science. Once you are allowed to discount evidence as illusory, how do you then determine which evidence is genuine and which evidence is illusory? That was my point; sorry for the confusion.

And all things being equal in the primary research, this claim would have merit, as I have said.

Why do all things have to be equal in the primary research? Dawkins never asserts anything of this nature.

So is natural selection real, or does it have the appearance of design, or both? This is waffly. I think your research papers would probably help me, here, since they'll obviously propose molecular mechanisms I currently am not aware of.

Life on Earth is the result of design; much of the diversity we see in life on Earth is the result of natural selection.

Well, if it's published in a respected journal, you can be sure it has been peer-reviewed (with the exception of PNAS. I hate that about them).

Who determines whether a journal is well enough respected or not and how do they make this determination?

Not generally, although new research protocols are often published, and then immediately are tried by competitive grad students. If they don't work, the grad students get their PIs to write angry letters, and then the papers get retracted. This does happen occasionally (think the cloning scandal).

Well none of the articles I listed above were ever retracted by any of the journals they were published in.

Nope. But it's a good start when you're learning a new field. Much more reliable than anything else we've got. And since usefulness is all that matters to the grade-grubbing grad students, fraud is usually detected. Is it perfect? No. It's the best system around, though.

I do not believe this reflects the actual purpose behind the peer-review system. Some of the best science we’ve ever seen was never published by peer-reviewed journals.

I'm not sure why you included a [sic] here, since "it's" is contraction of "it is," as in "it is how most scientists do it." A correct use of "its" would be, "Look at that dog! Its hat is on backwards!"

Yup, I screwed that up, my apologies.

It's (see that? "It is" becomes "it's" with the use of an apostrophe to replace a letter!) that simple, and it's really fun.

IT’S not that simple. You’re falsely assuming that science does not have ITS own axioms. If two scientists differ on their axioms then they are incapable of merely examining the research and data and coming to a conclusion as to which side won.

I don't believe I am mischaracterizing you. I have already said that if you have one paper to show me, I will of course retract my claim that creationists do NO research.

You only said that in this response, let’s not be disingenuous here.

But that's petty given the larger concern- that scientists are entirely overlooking a rich and well-researched body of data from excellent creationist scientists, an unacceptable situation.

They’re not merely overlooking it, they are purposely censoring it (something a former managing editor of Science has admitted to in the past). There are huge moralistic and existential implications to creation research, implications that most people do not want to deal with. It is much easier to just filter it all out of the system, although as I have pointed out some of it still sneaks by the censors because creationists have their methodological ‘ducks in a row’ so to speak.

If the playing field is indeed level, then creationists must publish hundreds of primary research papers every year, so asking for ten is pretty piddly, and surely you feel (as I would) that 10 papers could never do the richness of your field justice.

There are more than ten articles published from this year, but if you are anything like other atheists on here you will discount them a priori because they are published in creation peer-reviewed journals. If you are genuinely interested in learning the material and their position then that is where you will have to look. They do not have the funding to publish numerous articles every year in secular journals. If you are merely trying to prove that creationists never get published in secular research journals then I have provided enough information to refute that claim; they in fact do.

It seems you would WANT to show me the research, if it's so convincing. Why be so resistant?

Whether or not you find something convincing is irrelevant. I think you forget that I have been on this forum for years now; I have played this game before so I am just a bit jaded. This is how it plays out everytime…

Atheist: Creationist research is never peer-reviewed
Me: Sure it is.
Atheist: Examples?
Me: Lists examples from secular journals and gives the names of the major creation peer-reviewed journals.
Atheist: Those are creation journals!
Me: Well not all of them are, but why does that matter?
Atheist: Well they are reviewed by other creationists.
Me: And secular journals are reviewed by other evolutionists, so your point is?
Atheist: I do not accept these journals.
Me: Nobody is forcing you to, but your initial claim merely said “peer-review”, not “peer-reviewed by evolutionists”.

As you can see, I have my reasons for not be very hopeful that you will be any different in this exchange. Creationists have been published in secular journals, anyone who espouses otherwise is flat out wrong. However, most of their research is published in their own peer-review system. You can reject that if you like, but I think this would be a misstep if you value intellectual honesty. I am enjoying the discussion though.

Now, you're just making shit up to defend your increasingly flimsy position.

You see, you’ve never possessed enough of a working knowledge of basic relativity to engage in this topic, that is why I cringe every time you try bringing it up, it flies right over your head every time. Physics was not my field of study, but I believe I understand the basics well enough to explain Lisle’s position. If we stipulate the current Einstein Synchrony Convention, the rate at which clocks tick is dependent upon their velocity. This means that two people who are moving at different velocities but are at the same position in space will witness the same event happening at two different times. This is something that is stipulated by us, it is not a necessary property of nature itself. Using this convention, we see the delay concerning the moons of Jupiter we see because the speed of light is uniform in all directions regardless of one’s position. If we stipulate an Anisotropic Synchrony Convention (notice these are merely conventions, they are stipulated by us), clocks will tick at different rates when they are at different positions. This means that the speed of light is dependent upon the observer’s position rather than their velocity. This means we are observing the delay concerning the moons of Jupiter because they are changing position thus making time pass differently, rather than because the light has to transverse more distance. We know that if you move a clock it will change the rate at which it ticks. The question is, is did it tick differently because of its change in velocity or did it tick different because we changed its position in space. We will never know this answer; neither explanation is more correct than the other. Lisle’s point is that if scripture’s description of creation week is using an anisotropic synchrony convention rather than an isotropic synchrony convention then nothing in scripture contradicts anything we observe in the Universe regarding the speed of light and time.

BTW, the thundering round of indifference from the astronomical and astrophysical communities would suggest that I am not alone in my dismissal of Lisles [sic] bullshit.

By the way, this is called a fallacious argument from silence.

Because assuming your god exists, if this method of population control is the best it can come up with, it is far from omniscient. If your god is truly both omniscient and omnipotent, then doing so would make it a petty, vindictive little shit.

He does not use it as a form of population control, that’s my entire point. Scripture never supports that notion. Death is a judgment for sin.

So how does that position take this into account?

”The way in which the universal constants are connected is only partially understood. So, the impact of a changing speed of light on the universe and life on earth is not fully known.”

Only the round-trip speed of light needs to be constant, which it still is using this convention. I appreciate the question though.

Maybe if Lyle got himself a microwave and a chocolate bar, he could try this experiment for over 11's

He could, but again that is only measuring the round-trip speed of light ( c ), which is the same using both conventions.

I find it hard to believe you don't already know this, but here goes. Using “standard candles” (such as neutron stars, supernovae, interstellar maser emission etc...) it is possible to calculate the distance of a stellar object/galaxy/whatever. Doing a simple calculation with light speed will tell you how long it long for light to reach us from that object, and therefore give a minimum age. The further away an object is, the higher the minimum age.

Well this runs into the problem above, it does not necessarily have to take that long for light to reach us, it depends on which convention you’re stipulating. Of course stipulations cannot be used to demonstrate anything because they are man-made.

The hubble constant tells us that the universe is expanding proportional to distance. Extrapolating backwards, the universe was once smaller and more dense, therefore with higher temperatures. The CMBR discovered in 1964 by Penzias and Wilson fits the predictions made by the big bang model, so too does the star population and the chemical composition of the observable universe.

Last I was aware they were having trouble calculating a Hubble constant that made much sense or was even very consistent. Secondly, this seems to be assuming the proof by calculating the expansion back to a singularity. What are your reasons for assuming a constant expansion rate and a beginning point of zero? I grew 0.1 inches in the year between my 17th and 18th birthday, using your same assumptions I’d have to be 714 years old at that time since I am 71.5 inches tall right?

There are plenty of resources available on the internet that explain it much better than I.

I wish you could just explain it. I really hate just, “taking their word for it.”

No. That is not the scientific method. That is the creationist method. The scientific method is to generate a hypothesis after making observations.

We’re talking past one another. Yes, sometimes the first step of the scientific method is called, “observation” and sometimes it is called “formulating a question”- either way this is not referring to the actual process of experimental inquiry. This comes after the hypothesis has been formulated.

•The scientific method is a way to ask and answer scientific questions by making observations and doing experiments.
•The steps of the scientific method are to:
◦Ask a Question
◦Do Background Research
◦Construct a Hypothesis
◦Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
◦Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
◦Communicate Your Results

- http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fa...thod.shtml

Creationists are not violating anything in the method by approaching the evidence with a hypothesis in hand. Evolutionists do the exact same thing.

It used to reliably date organic materials up to 50,000 years old (maybe more, I seem to remember reading that it can now be used up to 60,000 or so. The method isn't used to date the earth as we know itmuch older than that. However, since YEC's claim the earth is 10,000 years old or less, I deemed it relevant.

How do you know it is used to reliably date organic matter up to 50,000 years old? I am not aware of any way to empirically verify this.

I'm guessing that science was not your best subject at school.

You’d be guessing wrong. It was my field of study at University and what I do now for a living. I am merely trying to prevent you from engaging in posturing. I will ask again, why is the notion of a rapid polar reversal ridiculous? Simply because you say so?

Or English, it seems.

There’s nothing wrong with my English (although I did screw it up with one of Zazzy’s posts ). Again, just like everyone who believes the Earth is billions of years old you’re engaging in posturing. Until you demonstrate otherwise I will assume you simply cannot answer the question.

Don't be obtuse, of course it's relevant. If I don't deem something to be worthy of a response, I won't respond.

It’s not relevant in regards to the merits of our positions, which is what I am interested in. If you raised an objection to Christianity and a Christian merely answered you by saying he did not deem your objection worthy of a response you’d have an aneurism. It’s disappointing that you feel you’re justified in engaging in this sort of misbehavior now.

By tracing genetic markers. If you want more, you have the internet. Use it. Stop using me as a surrogate search engine. If you think you can refute the evidence, do so. If not, stop whining.

Unfortunately you’ve given me nothing to even refute. By tracing genetic markers? How does that demonstrate linear ancestry?

I thought you didn't like assertions?

I thought you did?

Are you taking the piss? Geomagnetic reversals are recoded in oceanic crust all over the world. In order for your insane little idea to be true, all current oceanic crust would've had to be created and all previous oceanic crust destroyed, at the same. Do you not see anything remotely retarded about that proposition?

That is true only if there are sections of the Ocean’s crust that pre-date the polar reversals that occurred during the year of the flood. Of course the evidence demonstrates that the igneous ocean crust and sediments overlying it postdate the entire continental Paleozoic sedimentary record; so we know this is not the case.

[*]Where is the evidence for this?

For what? Plate tectonics?

[*]Why do the geomagnetic reversals either side of the mid-atlantic ridge mirror each other?

I am not seeing the problem here, you’ll have to be more specific.

[*]Have you ever considered seeing a psychiatrist?

Nope, have you?