How old is the Earth?

[Statler Waldorf]

---

Well you certainly don't add any credit to your position by being too scared to debate the opposing position. I never run from a debate because I am secure in my beliefs. I suggest you re-evalucate your's.

Refusing to argue with creationists doesn't imply the emotion of fear. There are people in the world who believe the earth is flat, now I would refuse to debate with them as well. It's just not worth it.

I don't debate with total idiots. End of.

Though I shall add this, because I wants too.



Now old chap, if you don't mind. I'm going to have some rest. It's really late over here. If you want to argue with someone over your beliefs, find someone else. Quite frankly the banana nightmare and the crock-a-duck did the trick on convincing me to never waste time with a creationist.

Good night.

---

Oh brother. Football Team A claims to be the best football team in the League. Only one problem, they refuse to play anyone. Football Team B claims to also be the best football team in the league and will play anyone, no matter where. They will even pay all the costs for the game and will even play the game at the Football Team A's Stadium. Football Team A still refuses and just says, "Football Team B is just not good enough to play us, we are not scared." Which football team is most likely the better team? Team B of course. Well that was almost too easy.

---

---

I don't think you get it. The An-isotropic Propagation of Light Model is completely consistant with Albert's Theories. You cannot prove one of the two models to be correct because emperical proof requires direct observation and the two models appear identical to the observer, that's the point. Like I said early, many are moving towards the newer model because it solves a lot of time problems fo the Big Bang theory. However, it also makes it so that you can know longer use Starlight to date the Universe, bummer dude.

It sounds like someone's attempt to say that despite all observational evidence, math, and physics, somesone somewhere found a way to attempt to discredit a consistent speed of light despite having zero observational evidence for that theory.
My google search on the topic turned up very few topics related to that specific model - precisely six results.
On the Origin of Inertia
The cosmological lens equation and the equivalent single-plane gravitational lens
The cosmological lens equation and the equivalent single-plane gravitational lens
(The above is the same file as the previous, different location)
Question On Origin of Inertia ( Physics Forums Cosmology )

Of the links provided, one didn't go to where the link stated (having nothing to do with the topic) and one attempted to download a file into my computer. From what I've read from the links provided above, the authors seem to asssert the opposite idea in terms of the propogation of light directionally.
In other words, I have no reason to believe, so far, that this idea simply isn't an attempt to psudeo-scientifically attenpt to discredit the speed of light's consistency throughout the universe. It's also interesting because despite admitting that it'd be impossible to observe, you neglect to mention all the problelms that this theory would have concerning pretty much all of physics... as in... the entire discipline would fall apart.

The youtube (seriously? youtube?) video you posted dealt with "C-decay", which has nothing to do with An-Isotropic Propagation of Light. So you missed the mark on that one.

Yes. I know it's hard to believe, but people post things on youtube that are professional as well as scientific up on youtube. Also, while C-decay was dealt with, it wasn't the primary focus of all the videos. In fact, it dealt with a number of things, except an-isotropic propogation of light but it did prove, using high school physics, that the speed of light is constant in all directions (which is something that the theory of relativity does as well).

According to Wikipedia (and if you don't like that source, I'll easily cite another):

Special relativity (SR) (also known as the special theory of relativity or STR) is the physical theory of measurement in inertial frames of reference proposed in 1905 by Albert Einstein (after the considerable and independent contributions of Hendrik Lorentz, Henri Poincaré and others) in the paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies". It generalizes Galileo's principle of relativity—that all uniform motion is relative, and that there is no absolute and well-defined state of rest (no privileged reference frames)—from mechanics to all the laws of physics, including both the laws of mechanics and of electrodynamics, whatever they may be. Special relativity incorporates the principle that the speed of light is the same for all inertial observers regardless of the state of motion of the source.

Thus, an-isotropic propogation of light (aka: un-identical propogation of light in all directions) is utterly in violation of Einstein's special theory of relativity and observation.

The Astrophysicist I quoted IS an expert and HAS spent his career observing the stars, so you didn't prove anything there.

And his viewpoint is irrelevant for one important reason (but not the only reason):
He's a creationist - which means he isn't objective which means any point he makes that contradicts his worldview is immediately the subject of scrutiny. Anything from him about anything he says, unless it has been peer reviewed by the scientific community, is irrelevant. I could make the case for many things said by most scientists about virtually anything because while scientific concepts come from individuals, like Einstein, they only become a part of the scientific literature when they are peer reviewed, subjected to repeatable tests or observation by independant source, and any number of other hurdles I may be forgetting.
That's why Evolution and Big Bang are prevelant in the scientific community and An-isotropic Propogation of Light is a lame attempt to discredit Relativity and the idea of a constant speed of light.

You said, "Nothing is one hundred percent accurate. Ever." Is this statement not 100 % accurate then? :-)

It's as accurate as anything else in the universe.

Well if the Earth is really 4.5 billion years old then you cannot "observe" that decay rates are constant because yoru observation is vastly too small and insignificant compared to the whole time period. Even if you could observe it for 100 years it would still only be 2.2X10^-11 percent of the total time. Even a curved line looks straight when you only observe an insignificant portion of it. So you're going to have to provide some other backing as to how you know those rates are constant

I don't need to see the whole planet to know that the earth is spherical. I just need a few good points to measure and trigonometry and I can figure out the circumferance of the entire planet without needing a billion-dollar shuttle and a space suit.
Same concept. Different application.

Between 6000 and 7000 years.

That's just sad.

---

Haha, nice attempt, but fail. An-isotropic Propagation of light is just observable as isotropic propagation of light. The mathematic models work exactly the same for both models. So to try and say that one is superior to the other based on the math is fallacious.

The Wiki article you posted is talking about observer's movement in relation to the light source. NOt the same thing. Nice try though.

Actually the Astrophysicist I cited DOES have articles in Peer-reviewed journals. So to say he does not is just being dishonest. I guess we cannot use Netwon's Laws of Motion since Newton was a Creationist and apparently Creationist's are not objective! I hate to break it to you, nobody is objective. There is no neutral ground- your preconceived ideas detemrine your conclusions just as much as mine do. This is pretty evident by your attempt to discredit someone with a Ph.D in Astrophysicis solely because of his Religious views. Pretty silly really. If you keep playing that game too much I will just require that you only cite peer-reviewed journals and notn wikipedia and youtube. I may even make it so you have to only cite Creation Peer-Reviewed Journals since you seem to only cite Evolutionary Sources. So I suggest we not open that can of worms and look at the arguments presented and not play the "my source is better than your's" game- it's quite frankly pretty childish.

Besides, the An-isotropic Propagation of Light Model is just one of several models that can get Distant Starlight to Earth in a very short period of time on Earth. It just happens to be the one I lean towards because it is very recent and clear-cut.