The speed of light, stars, and YEC?

[Statler Waldorf]

Repetition doesn't add weight to any given claim Stat. Maybe you should slow down and demonstrate the veracity of any single claim before moving on the the next? If it was bullshit the first time, it's going to bullshit the next time. Unless you have some modifications to make to any of these claims that would give us reason to reassess them? Or, you could stop complaining about science and do science. Be the man who closes the book, so to speak.

Repeating an un-refuted claim is a very rational way to keep your feet to the fire until you either concede the point or refute it, your choice.

We've already been down this road. I have fully explained what I believe and why. Just because you pretend I haven't doesn't mean that I haven't. It only says something about your intellectual honesty.

No I am sorry, "I use the laws of logic because I like the results." does nothing to account for their existence. I can say, "I use this computer because I like the results." but that does nothing to account for the very existence of the computer I am using. So you have still not accounted for the laws of logic given your worldview regardless of what you may think.

A fact true of all gods everywhere since the dawn of time which was not 6,000 years ago.[/code]

Assertion made above.....now waiting for proof.

Interesting article that, it starts by assuming that the bible is correct and anyone who doesnt believe it is wrong.
Yep folks, that thar be real scientifical stuff, yuk,yuk.

You start by assuming the Bible is incorrect and proceed from there, so why are you allowed to start on biased ground but not creationists? Special pleading!

It then goes on to talk about light cones and the like which is real science......

So you must have missed the fact that those light cone diagrams explain exactly how ASC is completely mathematically possible?

And then we get to the crux of the article on page 18, which is basically "a miracle occurs"
Yep, real science indeed......

Please directly quote where Lisle states a miracle occurs, thanks.

(Strange thing is that I could not copy and paste the relevent passage. It would appear that Lisle doesn't want people quoting his work)

Yeah those PDFs are pretty mysterious aren't they? Funny how the article is also available in web form, which of course you could have found if you really wanted to support your case.

You know what Stat?

No, what Zen?

The "slow transport method" that you claimed Roemer used was actually proposed by Einstein as a way of getting around the problems imposed by time dilation generated when you try to seperate your two measuring devices so as to measure c.

Yes, good so far. Of course Einstein proposed this after he had settled on using ISC because it would only be valid with ISC.

Since Roemer made his discovery two and a half CENTURIES before Einsteins work he would've known nothing about Relativity, time dilation or the slow tranport method.

You crack me up, that doesn't stop Roamer's method from using the slow transport method even though it was 'discovered' by Einstein years later, just like people could conduct experiments that involved gravity before the 'discovery' of the laws of motion. The movement of the second clock in the experiment (Jupiter's moon) would be an example of the slow transport method. You are too much Zen.

And if you weren't just a vacous emptyheaded handpuppet for the disingenous malarkey merchants parading themselves as creation "scientists" and actually had some genuine knowledge of the subject you would've known that.

"Sticks and stones Love, sticks and stones."

No, I asked where Einstein said it, not where some cretinist fucktard claimed he said it.

Did you notice I didn't have any issues copying and pasting from Lisle's article? Funny how that works huh? Lisle is an appropriate authority on such matters and cites his sources, you can certainly find the piece of Einstein's work he cites and double check it if you don't believe him, however that's not my job to double check all of his facts.

Translated, " No Scientific body has even looked at it"

Did you miss the part about it being peer-reviewed? You are really off your game today aren't you?

Ok then how about a list of institutions that have reviewed it, or even a list of who it has been submitted to?

You'd have to look to the Answers Journal for that information, it's not my job to do your hunting for you just like I wouldn't expect you to find the peer reviewers for Science or Nature.

BTW Stat, this place you claim to work at as a scientist. Do they know you're a scientist or do they still think you're the janitor?

John is our janitor. They actually really like thescientific work I do.

Evolution is a process which can be (and has been) proven to occur. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_evolution#Specific_examples]

No, that's micro-evolutoin through natural selection which is accepted and was even first developed by creationists (Blythe). If you are going to believe all life on Earth originates from a single common ancestor (the portion of evolution creationists object to) you are going to have to provide more than this.

Perhaps you do not ascribe to the idea that all life on Earth was formed this way, but surely you accept the fact that evolution through natural selection as a process is real?

Absolutely, creationists don't believe Noah took 60,000 different animals onto the Ark.

Creation is also a process, but I have yet to see any evidence that it can occur.

Depends on what you would accept as evidence.

I, for one, cannot accept any explanation for life on Earth that relies on a process that cannot be proven to occur. If you have any references (so no talky, just links) to support the claim that Creation as a process is real, please share.

So then you do not believe in Abiogenesis because it has never been proven to naturally occur?

I believe that quote is referring to the current scientific consensus that the Earth is about four and a half billion years old, based mostly on radiometric dating. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_earth]

That would be interesting if that was really what the quote was referring to considering the fact that consensus does not determine scientific fact and radiometric dating is not a "law of nature".

I find it a lot easier to believe a man named Michelangelo existed and painted a ceiling a few hundred years ago than I find it to believe some supernatural being named God existed and created the universe 6.000 years ago. The latter requires far more assumptions and fantasizing about the world around us.

How is your personal opinion about what you find easier to believe relevant to what really happened? I find it quite easy to believe in the God of scripture and in creation, does that mean it happened then?

Also, I do not believe that was the point. It's not that "Goddidit" is not the correct answer (it isn't, but that's irrelevant here), it's that it fails to explain the world around us without requiring extreme assumptions that cannot be substantiated. Meanwhile, “Michelangelo did it” requires us only to assume a man named Michelangelo could paint rather well.

So you are saying that even if God really did create the world, and that is really the correct answer we should adopt an answer that is wrong because you feel it has better explanatory power? That seems a bit irrational doesn't it?

Occam's razor is a marvelous tool. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor]

Not all logicians even accept Occam's razor, but even the ones who do only accept it when the two competing ideas are equal in all other areas. Of course I accept Creation because I feel it is far superior to Evolution, and you accept Evolution because you feel it is superior so invoking the razor here is inappropriate.

Induction may be flawed, but it hardly proves the existence of God. However, I like your argument. It has a certain elegance to it, like those mathematical tricks that show that 1=2.

I am not merely saying induction is flawed, I am saying that in an atheistic universe it has no foundation at all. A person has no rational basis to assume uniformity in nature in a purely material world, yet science assumes this to be the case all the time.

I firmly believe the opposite it true. Everyone in his or her hearts of hearts knows there is no God, but some surpress this knowledge because they are afraid of being alone (and wrong).

You know this to be true how?....

An answer is not the same as an explanation. "Goddidit" is the former, but not the latter. It's not easy either, because it requires the assumption that God exists in the first place and thus begs the question "Who made God?".

So saying Michelangelo painted the Sis-teen Chapel is not an explanation for where the painting came from? Archeology uses such explanations all the time, and not many would suggest that archeologists are being unscientific. Would this also beg the question who painted Michelangelo? I don't think so.

Yes, but it's our friend Occam's razor again. Even if there was no evidence (see above) for the old age of Earth (and thus seas of time), I would still have less trouble /assuming/ the existence of said seas of time than the existence of God.

Sure, but seas of time is not all you really need now is it? You need billions of particles, billions of interactions that all build up over the eons to give us the amazing complexity we see today. Creation is starting to sound like the simpler explanation to me.

If people actually comprehended the implications of using God or scripture as an answer or explanation of the world around them (and the assumptions required) nobody woud believe the ridiculous notion that these things are true in the first place.

Not so, people have to borrow from that very worldview all the time in order to even make their own logically cogent. Then they use these borrowed principles to argue against the very worldview they borrowed them from, it's a philosophical nightmare.

Good discussion thought Darwinian!

The idea that every trait _must_ have some sort of survival advantage is patently false. As long as the trait does not pose (too great) a disadvantage to the survival rate of the species it can arise and persist.

Sorry, I think you are the one who is misguided on this one. This may be the case for very small and insignificant traits, but if the trait is anything significant the organism would have to devote time and energy into developing and preserving it which would be a huge disadvantage. So the religious belief in God had to provide an evolutionary advantage or else it would have not been selected for.

In this view, theists are simply suffering from the some of the side-effects of the evolution of our species. How ironic.

In my view atheists are less developed according to the very theory they champion, which is also ironic.

Not to drudge up ancient history in this thread, but I didn't see this fallacy addressed anywhere. Nothing makes my blood boil like misstating accepted science as if it were "incorrect" and thus proving the opposite... Statler's statement here is completely and utterly a LIE based on wishful thinking. In fact, the background radiation of the universe was measured and pointed EXACTLY to the big bang. The cosmological radiation matches up with everything else we know about the cosmological model.... it most certainly is not, and never will be, evidence for the ignorant conclusion that the universe is 6000(!) years old...

Speaking of wishful thinking...

Sure Big Bang Cosmologists have proposed possible solutions to the Horizon Problem, but to date none of them can explain the uniformity in background radiation given the Big Bang timescale.

Let me start by saying that I know nothing about cosmology. There. I'm an idiot, but I'll still respond.

None of us on here are experts on cosmology, so I am glad you still responded.

I think I agree with that. Nothing wrong with pretending light particles move a different speeds for different observers; even if it seems a bit silly to me.

No more silly than pretending it moves at different speeds dependent on the observer's velocity like Einstein proposed. A lot of this stuff is not intuitive.

This may be the case for the ASC convention, but certainly not for the ASC model. Occam's razor should apply to the model and its predictions.

It's not a model though, it's a convention. The trick is figuring out which convention of time measurement Genesis uses.

Spontaneous star formation vs. spontaneous supreme being formation (a being which subsequently creates the universe). I think Occam's razor serves us well here; the former requires far fewer assumptions than the latter.

I think the latter actually requires fewer assumptions.

So, if I assume God exists and no model for the formation of blue stars is ever found, I will have "a strong confirmation of the ASC model". Not the kind of evidence I was looking for, really. Lack of evidence or theory for the formation of blue stars does not equate to proof of creation. That's just silly. Again, Occam is our friend.

Did you mist the whole part where he was pointing out that the numbers and locations of blue stars we do observe are consistent with ASC?

The rest of the proofs for the model in the paper can likewise be dismissed. Thanks for wasting my time. It was fun.

To say I am underwhelmed with your supposed refutation of the paper would be a gross understatement.

---

Yes, I went over with Statler ages ago regarding ASC and the speed of light.
He doesn't seem to quite understand just how impossible space travel would be if we used a different 'convention' than what relativity uses because that would make communication with space probes impossible - communications would arrive to the probes at half the speed of light and return instantaneously.

Nevermind that 'instantaneous' travel being impossible and our assumptions about C have thus far been proven correct as far as telescopes can see - nevermind the practical applications both on the ground and in space that all rely on relativity being absolutely correct.

I'm sorry, Statler, but simply using a 'different measuring tool' doesn't make ASC's idea that the physical constants of the universe aren't exactly the same regardless of the observer's position - including the speed of light and there's plenty of data (like NASA's entire history of space travel) to prove it.

---

After our previous conversations on ASC I eventually just arrived at the conclusion that you didn't even understand the idea well enough to properly discuss it, I see nothing has changed in the last 12 months. You seem to still live under the delusion that conventions are normative rather than descriptive. Space travel and communication would be just as possible using ASC as it is and was using ESC, just like it would have been using English units rather than Metric units.

That's the bit that confused me in the article. Is the author suggesting that the speed of light is different in relation to Earth, or in relation to the observer? Both seem ludicrous, and I can come up with all sorts of problems for both, but it was never quite clear to me from the article which of these nutty proposals it was putting forward.

The Earth and the observer are one and the same in the article because Genesis is told from the perspective of an Earthly observer.

EDIT:
Oh, there's also this.
Statler and others, if you check out that link, you'll notice that we filthy humans have invented a camera that can capture light in transit.
Perhaps it's just me, but given that we can speed-time light in real time frame-by-frame, we can easily tell now if light moves at a speed other than 300,000 km a second. That is, using a method you creationists can't BS around given that it's been well established in other reliable methods. I have yet to see any such major headlines by anyone anywhere stating that light moves at a speed other than 300000 km/second.

You see! This is what I was talking about, if you actually understood ASC you would not say stuff like this. In ASC light only moves instantaneously towards the observer, so the fact you can capture it en route moving tangentially to the observer is no surprise at all. Move along folks, nothing to see here.

That the laws of physics would change based on point of observation is completely without basis in reality. We've never seen it happen and have no reason to believe its true. Simply more wishful thinking by the willfully ignorant.

So you are completely denying Special Relativity? Nice.


Hope you all had a very Merry Christmas and have a great New Year!