Statler Waldorf introduction.

[Statler Waldorf]

If he could prove the earth to be 6000-7000 years old he would get the nobel prize

No, right, he will say his papers were refused because there is a world conspiracy to shun creationists out of science

Haha, this right here shows your lack of knowledge on the subject. It is impossible to prove the age of something you never observed. Hence why nobody has gotten the nobel prize for proving the Earth was any age. Hence why the age of the Earth keeps changing. Someone who claims emperical proof in the Historical Sciences is committing a serious category error and should go back and take some basic Science courses at a Junior College somewhere near them.

---

You keep appealing to "high school science", I am beginning to think that is all the Scientific Education you possess. Am I right? :-) Well you played the game that because someone is a Creationist it instantly invalidates their argument (your fantasy), so I am just playing that game right back with you :-) It is kind of a lame game huh?

Actually, I'm glad you mentioned that.
I keep bringing it up for two reasons -
The first and most important reason is because you've identified yourself as a former math and science teacher and a current government scientist (no doubt given job when the Bush Administration was still in power, assuming you work in the United States - but that's just one of my patented baseless assertions).
The second reason in order but not stature is to examplify how easily your arguements are refuted using concepts you should be intimately familiar with as someone who should have an understanding of math and science at least to the level of a teenage student.

The fact that your statements and beliefs clearly fail to live up even those standards helps to prove my point becuase so far you don't seem to have actually made any counterpoints to my refutations of that light propogation nonsense given that it cannot conform to a basic understanding of math and science.

As such, I've no reason to believe any of your arguements or credentials have any validity.

Haha, I am sure you are aware that high school textbooks are written for a specific age range, just as are junior high books and so on. These books do not contain the cutting edge research in any of their disciplines (I sure hope they don't). If you were in a high school debate you would certainly not appeal to an elementary school textbook just as you should not appeal to a high school textbook in a discussion at this level (assuming we have both graduated high school, I know I did). These textbooks do nothing to refute the an-isotropic propagation of light which I pointed out earlier in a post you either ignored or didn't understand. What you are arguing for uses a calculated time definition, which under this defintion light is indeed isotropic. However, using the observational time defintion light becomes an-isotropic. They are both valid definitions of time and can be converted back and forth just like meters and centimeters. The Creation account in Genesis uses the observational time definition, so to argue against this reality by using the calculated time definition would be completely invalid. It would be like saying, "no no no, that's not a mile, it's 5280 feet!". Clear now?

---

Since the only argument a creationist can make is "God did it", their argument is by default, invalid in scientific terms.

Haha, well that's not the only argument Creationists make. According to whom is that by default an invalid argument? You? Methodolgocial Naturalism is not the only valid Science my friend, anyone who believes this needs to brush up on Science.