How old is the Earth?

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

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.

I suppose I'm just going to have to take your word for it.
If only basic high school physics could prove... oh wait... it does.

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

For all observers, light moves at the same speed, regardless of the motion of the source or the observer's location and motion. It actually says that in the wiki article and any place else I could find that states what the special theory of relativity is.
I don't know how you're not reading that when it so obvioiusly refutes that crackpot theory.
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.

So it's a good thing I never actually stated anything to that effect.
I anticipate easily discrediting him for having his articles peer-reviewed only by like-minded creationists.

I guess we cannot use Netwon's Laws of Motion since Newton was a Creationist and apparently Creationist's are not objective!

Newton's prominance in history and the importance of his work were not decided by Newton alone and it wasn't even determined during the time that he was alive. Newton's laws held up for the same reason that Evolution has held up for as long as it has, as well as any number of scientific concepts that you've already stated to have rejected.
If this man has work peer reviewed by the scientific community - not Answers in Genesis, not the Discovery Institute, or any other purely religious institution, I might give it some merit but I can already see where your new laws of how light propogates already violates special relativity, which in physics, is a ginormous no-no.

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.

Which is why I pay little attention to individuals with very rare exception and even then, I take the things they say with a grain of salt. A Ph.D. isn't a one-way-ticket to never have his work be refuted nor does it give him objectivity - particularly when he publicly ascribes to a worldview that is utterly inconsistent with evidence especially when that evidence is in his main line of his supposedly professional work.

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.

There are so many things I could and perhaps should say here, but instead I'm simply going to state that the exersize would be pointless. I have nothing I need to prove to you because as that atheist slogan goes, I have the fossils. I win.

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.

That's nice. It's still very clearly in violation of the laws of physics and thanks to that filthy, filthy youtube video you've dismissed like yesterday's garbage, it's easily refuted for the garbage that it actually is.