RE: The universe appears "old", but it is still less than 10,000 years old
December 4, 2013 at 5:31 pm
(December 3, 2013 at 5:20 pm)orogenicman Wrote: Utter nonsense. It is not a convention. There is simply no evidence for your claim. AT ALL.
Yes there is. Multiple sources have been cited and many explanations have been given. The only you can continue to think this is if you have either ignored or simply not bothered to read the relevant responses to yourself and others.
Quote:If you think that means it is measuring the two-way speed of light, you are mistaken. The problem with one-way speed of light measurements is one of synchronizing clocks at different locations.Correct.
Quote:Because the measurement is being taken at the same location at different times, There is no synchronization issue.Correct. However, as previously explained, this is a measurement of the two way speed.
Quote:And as I have already pointed out, if there was a difference in velocities, there would also be a difference in frequencies; but there is no such shift. Rotating the apparatus in a gravity field and getting the same results proves the constancy of the velocity in all directions, and verifies (for the umpteenth time) the Michelson-Morley experiment.
The Michelson–Morley experiment measured the two way speed.
Quote:And no sir, there is no evidence whatsoever that light in a vaccum ever travels at 1/2C and even less that it ever bounces off of anything resulting in it travelling instantaneously. None. Nada. Making shit up is not evidence. We call it dishonesty. Even if you are lying for Jesus, it is still a lie.
I can assure you that I am most certainly not "lying for Jesus". I have been doing something altogether different; I call it "reading for knowledge". I would heartily recommend it to anyone.
(December 3, 2013 at 5:20 pm)orogenicman Wrote:Optimistic Mysanthrope Wrote:I'm not sure that is the claim per se. I was under the impression that there is no common ancestor for plants and animals, for instance.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl...n-ancestor
Quote:One researcher put the basic biological assumption of a single common ancestor to the test--and found that advanced genetic analysis and sophisticated statistics back up Darwin's age-old proposition.
A new statistical analysis takes this assumption to the bench and finds that it not only holds water but indeed is overwhelmingly sound.
Awesome, thanks
I was labouring under the (false) impression that ancestry couldn't be determined due to horizontal gene transfer. Thanks again for showing me this
