The Statler Waldorf Balcony

[Rev. Rye]

Sweet I called it! You did use the "Primitive Egyptians were smarter than modern Egyptians" argument! You're getting very predictable. Since these primitive Egyptians were so smart in your eyes why did they also believe in gods and the super-natural? Or were they only "smart" when they agreed with you?

Well, "primitive Egyptians" were certainly smarter about the time period they lived in than their descendants were about that very same period by virtue of having lived in it. And quite honestly, I, as somebody with functioning brain cells, tend to defer to primary sources when it comes to matters of history.

And they believed in the super-natural because it was in ancient times and there wasn't much in the way of alternate explanations of how the world came to be that were any more sensible than a giant goose laying an egg into the Nile River.

So then you believe in the historical claims of the Bible since it is a primary source? Or do you only follow this rule when the primary sources agrees with your pre-conceived ideas about History?

Not exactly; it's an anthology of sources, the vast majority of historical parts of which were only written down around the 5th or 6th century BC. And, I have to ask about your last question: Are you sure you don't do the same with the Bible? After all, even I am willing to take historical sources (especially pre-Gibbon) with a grain of salt, especially when they talk about the supernatural. After all, even the Ancient Greek historians tended to insert their Gods into their histories. And for that matter, Ancient Egyptian sources have been backed up by a wealth of historical evidence and archaeology; and the earliest part of the Bible that has ever been backed up by any credible sort of archaeological evidence is the reign of King David and even there, there's significant room for doubt. So, simply put, I do follow the rule when there's some evidence backing up its stories. With the flood, there's just none of that, and like I said, if you take the Ussher chronology, there's actually a lot of evidence against it, most clearly, the pyramids of Giza. For that matter, historians believe that Egypt been inhabited continuously since 5400 BC, approximately a millennium and a half before Ussher claims the Earth to have been created.

[rjh4 is back]

First off, in my defense, asking for names is ridiculous.

I don't disagree and I know it was not you that asked.

Second, I noted that Kurt Wise has made a statement equating to placing ideology over science, thus showing him to be a poor scientist.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Here I disagree. Just because one holds to a certain ideology does not mean that they cannot practice science well. I think Kurt Wise was a Christian and a Creationist when he studied under Gould. If that is the case, then clearly Gould (and whoever else was on Wise's PhD defense board at Harvard) thought Wise could practice good science and have such an ideology.

Thirdly, I note that the people involved hold questionable motives, thus placing them under scrutiny.

And certainly no evolutionary scientist has questionable motives, right?

Saying that you'll deny facts and evidence because your magic man said so is plainly ridiculous - especially ridiculous to hear from a scientist.

I don't think Wise said he would "deny facts and evidence". I think he said exactly the opposite. I think he said that he would be able to practice science based on the facts and evidence even if it goes against his ideology and even if he still holds that ideology.

Also, I gave out examples to combat the "He has a PhD and that makes him worth listening too" with actual examples of wing nuts who also happen to be educate.

No problem here. That argument is ridiculous on either side. It is much more productive to discuss the actual issues.

To conclude, yes, the objective facts matter in the YEC debate. But one must keep in mind that those who clearly state they will ignore science, and thus the objectivity, to match their beliefs, will clearly contribute misleading information if need be. Thus the science is poisoned. It's called "poisoning the well"

As I said above, I think you are misconstruing Wise's statement.

Go suck an egg, you troll.

Brilliant, Syn. (Yes, you can read "sarcasm" here.)

Do you not have the capability of discussing issues with someone who disagrees with you without attempts at belittling them personally?

[Rev. Rye]

Of course, Francis Collins is an evangelical Christian, and he doesn't let it interfere with his observations of reality, unlike Wise.

[rjh4 is back]

So what you're saying is that since bats aren't plants they must be birds.
Yes, I'm sure it takes quite a bit of imagination to be able to classify a bat as avian, it really does.

Zen, you asked me to come up with a classification system such that what we call "birds" would be classified with "bats". I did that. What is the problem? How was my classification system "wrong"?

By what astounding feat of mental gymnastics can you arrive at the conclusion that the the bible is in fact correct? When a BAT IS NOT A BIRD!!!

Actually, the Bible doesn't really even say that the bat is a bird. The Hebrew word translated as "bird" can merely mean "flying creature". So, why not substitute "flying creature" for "bird" in Leviticus 11:13 for whatever translation you are reading. Seems pretty clear to me that is what that whole passage means anyway. You just seem to be stuck in thinking that the only classification system possible is the one currently in use.

[Thor]

There is no biblical teaching that women are inferior to men.

So when Timothy 2:11-12 tell us "Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man, but to be in silence.", you don't see that as teaching that a woman is inferior to a man?

[Welsh cake]

Well last time I checked the degree B.S. stood for Bachelor of Science, so I am pretty sure that still counts as a Science degree, not an arts degree. As for the M.A.- the universty was originally going to make it an M.S. but they realized that GeoScience is better served by final research projects not a research thesis. So that is the only difference. Nice try at belittling my education, but fail.

I for one couldn't care less what your supposed qualifications are - they're irrelevant to the rationality of one's argument in any debate.

I'm still waiting for you to explain to me why you think the Earth is a mere 6,000 to 10,000 years old.

[Autumnlicious]

Here I disagree. Just because one holds to a certain ideology does not mean that they cannot practice science well. I think Kurt Wise was a Christian and a Creationist when he studied under Gould. If that is the case, then clearly Gould (and whoever else was on Wise's PhD defense board at Harvard) thought Wise could practice good science and have such an ideology.

No. Just no. The scientific process requires objectivity or the closest approach to it possible - an ideology overriding that process damages or removes that objectivity. Claiming that ones ideology will not be reigned in even if all of evidence was against it shows that one is actually willfully and knowingly being decidedly non-objective.

In that case, we have a person whom society has trained to be a scientist not being one.

And certainly no evolutionary scientist has questionable motives, right?

Non-sequitor. You've no evidence to back up your claim for generic evolutionary scientist. Attempted strawman noted.

As I said above, I think you are misconstruing Wise's statement.

No, you're intentionally trying to change Wise's statement into something it is not.

".. if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate"

He'll admit there's evidence then embrace a disproven conclusion. Gee, a lot of objectivity there.

Do you not have the capability of discussing issues with someone who disagrees with you without attempts at belittling them personally?

That would require the one who was belittled to not say things that invite ridicule in the first place.

[Statler Waldorf]

---

Kind of funny you would say that. So how did people measure time before Calculated Time was first used in the 20th Century? People just not believe in time back then? Did they not have a way of measuring it? Wow you own all of those Phsyics books? The one I own is Raymond A. Serway, John W. Jewett, “Physics for Scientists and Engineers,6 Ed”. Yes it does have a section about observational time vs. calculated time so you can stop saying I just made those up. As I have said nearly a dozen times before, you are arguing against something that Creationists do not even claim (that light propagates an-isotropically using claculated time), so I really do not know why you continue to beat that dead horse.

Do I need to own them? Is that a necessary component of reading or understand them or does using libraries and the internet not count?
No, Statler, back then people counted seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks, months, years, decades, centuries, millenia, millions of years, and billions of years the same way we do and certainly during all the times of most ancient civilizations on record.

I've done every search I could on google and otherwise. There are no books, websites, articles, blogs, or anything - not even AIG or similar websites - that contain any information about
a) an-isotropic propogation of light
b) calculated/observational time as being two different things

The only thing that I can conclude based on this is that a) the only place this exists is in that one textbook or b) it doesn't exist at all. I assume you're misreading it somehow if it is, in fact, there but I haven't found the book online, or rather I did but there were no preview portions of it that I could peruse through and I haven't made rounds at the library yet this week.
There are no disparate definitions of time according to any source I can find and those physics textbooks I linked were the only ones I had time to search through out of the dozens more I googled.

As such, I have no reason to believe either of those things are actually anything more than an attempt to explain how the universe can violate the laws the physics and either be much smaller than it's observed to be (physically impossible - proven by that hated youtube video) or light has to be reaching us much faster than it actually is observed to be reaching us (physically impossible, proven by that hated youtube video.) In conclusion, I can only assume that you don't believe in gravity or physics and your sources are non-existant.

If I can find your textbook somewhere - online or otherwise, I'll look at it at the first available opportunity but the fact that I can't find this supposedly basic creation-proving theory anywhere else (including other physics textbooks) seems to point toward it being not an actual thing of any relevance to anything.

Actually AIG doesn't believe in a global flood on Mars. So I suggest you actually read the New York Times article and stop blaming all of this on AIG. It is not their fault you can't find the article it is the New York Times fault I guess (or your own). This website cites the same article, so contrary to your little conspiracy theory, I am quite sure it existed.

http://partners.nytimes.com/library/nati...index.html

If you had actually checked the links I showed you, you'd understand better how wrong you are. The NY times article doesn't exist anymore. The one you gave above was the one I showed you which is a list of links that include the broken link to the actual article that no longer actually exists but moves you to the main NY Times page. I showed that it actually exists because of that link you fed back to me and it includes a small amount of preview information, but the article is gone.
You'll also note the other links I gave which also gave accounts of the same story and AIG is the ONLY ONE that mentions a flood on mars and an upheaval as you described.
Granted I haven't quite gotten as amused with your statements as you have with mine, but your understanding of science makes just about everything you say as quotable, in context. I just don't care that much.
I should also note that I read the article as it appeared copied on that forum I linked but I can't be 100% certain that its' a copy paste, so I didn't bother to do more than mention it becauese at worst it's a second article accredited to the same source.

Still using your high school textbooks eh? lol. Non-catestrophic plate technoics would take a very long time, but this in turn assumes no flood so you cannot turn around and use this to argue against catestrophic plate tectonics because you'd be assuming the very thing you were trying to prove. Assuming the proof, bad bad bad.

It wasn't a high school textbook, but please, make your moving the goalposts fallacy that much more obvious, at least about as obvious as the fact that despite my ability to keep piling evidence in your direction in any way that I can you still have not refuted or explained anything with any clarity other than responding to everything I give you with "Nope. Didn't happen that way."
So go on. You're only making yourself out to appear more foolish than you already do.

"I don't need to understand what details about [evolution] that [evolutionists] believe to know it's wrong."

That's adorable but I don't care about knowing or understanding fantasy, yours or otherwise. Evolution actually happens and it's provable beyond a reasonable doubt and I've provided youtube videos using basic science and math to prove this point and now I've provided numerous textbooks and links that have outright refuted your claims.
Yet, this is the best response you've given. I'm sure you're proud of yourself.

Rapid Speciation does occur, don't make me use your own Evolutionists to argue against you. That just would not be right, kind of like Darth Vader being killed by his own light saber.

And I'm sure you'll explain it in a manner completely ignorant of how evolution or speciation has actually proven to work according to those books I linked or even your own account.
Rapid speciation doesn't allow a brown bear to become a panda bear, according to those books you've claimed to not understand in my quote above.

You have done this more than once, when you say "arc" you really mean "ark" right? Just making sure we're on the same page here. The rest of this paragraph does not make a lot of sense, but I will try to guess where you are going with this. We already discussed that rapid speciation can occur, so I don't think I have to address that any further. We can get different types of dogs really quickly using artificial selection, yes natural selection would be a bit slower but not a lot slower considering the animals would have been re-populating new empty niches and experiencing lots of selective pressures while the Earth was settling down after the flood.

As for the genetic inormation thing, were you talking about the Ecological rule that you need a minimum of 50,000 animals in a population to have a healthy population?

The fact that it can occur is one thing, but as those links (youtube and evolutionary biology books both) pointed out, that your idea of how that works is completely off-kilter for the reason that speciation, rapid or otherwise, never allows things like brown bears birthing polar bears (especially if one or both had died off in a mass extinction).
Which is a fundementally christian idea that is unabashedly wrong. As that 'foundational falsehoods of creationism' youtube videos pointed out, speciation describes the formation of new species as a result of geographic, physiological, anatomical, or behavioral factors that prevent previously interbreeding populations from breeding with each other.
What it doesn't do is allow one species to become another one that already existed - even when filling the same ecological niche. Speciation is essentially a synonym of evolution, which doesn't allow anything like what you've described - it doesn't allow you to only save one species of dog and later find all the ones that went extinct at a previous point in time.

Speaking of which, I do have to give you credit for not referring to 'Crocaduck' or some similar nonsense, though you are using the same arguement that led up that idiocy so I wouldn't be surprised if you did bring it up later.

I am sure you are aware that there are books about the fossil record written by Creationists (one of which got his Ph.D from Harvard). So your assertion that only people who know what they are talking about deny the biblical account of Creation is complete circular reasoning.

Strawman.
I've presented plenty more than mere word games despite word games being all I've been getting in return.

If there are any such creationist geologists, you've certainly done nothing to enlighten me of who these people are and what works they've done and given that all of my searches both on and offline have produced almost nothing (that almost being your physics book, but nothing yet on what you say it contains) on your 'scientific' concepts, I have no reason to believe or accept these things as true.
You haven't even provided a wikipedia page or youtube video that I could argue against or even some assinine thing from AIG or other creationist website.

Several threads, countless pages of bickering, and the only ones who have presented anything to the end of evidence are the ones arguing against creationism.
Otherwise, you're just examplifying the motivational poster that minimalist posted some time ago depicting someone with their eyes closed and fingers in their ears representing how creationists see contrary evidence.

You used an Evolutionary Biologist to talk about dendrochronology? I at least used someone with a Ph.D in Agronomy and Horticultural Sciences. I will take his word on Tree Physiology any day over Mr. Dawkins. Dawkins does not write for a like minded audience? Please tell me which Creationists are on his peer-review boards when he submits articles. They are all a bunch of like-minded non-objective Evolutionists like yourself. It's easy to get away with bad science when everyone who reviews your work practices the same bad science. Dawkins is small-time.

Moving the goalposts again?
You realize that the link I provided was a book explicitly on dendrochronology right?
Of course not, after all, why would you bother to check links?
Oh right. I mentioned "Dawkins" on a seporate but nearby note and the topic instantly shut down.
Also - peer review boards? You do know how scientific peer review works, right? Or am I going to have to explain this and provide professional links to prove this point as well?

Hardly, the first video you posted looked like something made by some guy with flash animation and Windows Movie Maker in his dorm room. What did you do before youtube? Did you just not try and argue your case?

And? So what? That doesn't detract from the points the guy makes nor does the science he uses any less correct in its use or applications or explainations.

More circular arguments. I am sure you are aware that Creation guys HAVE been published in your so called "reputable" peer reviewed journals. This must make them reputable now right? Yay!! Creation Scientists are finally reputable in the eyes of the TheDarkestAngel!

Circular arguements only apply to arguements that use circular logic.
If creationists could prove their worldview using the exact same methods as scientists, I would believe them. The problem is that they never have.
If creationists go through the same process that science uses to gather evidence, build a theory, test that theory and have success in repeated tests, tempered through peer review, then yes, I'm sure there are some that have done actual science.
My problem here is that you have yet to provide even a shred of evidence for your arguement or even people anywhere that support it.

Using observed time it does travel exactly how I said. Using calculated time it travels exactly how you said it does. You should know though that it is impossible to meausre the one way speed of light. If you can devise an experiment that does this you will win yourself a nobel prize my friend.

You're absolutely right. And that's why it's not science - there is no evidence to support it and it refutes the current laws of physics and it's apparently impossible to replicate or test.

Given that, why on earth do you even believe that this is a 'thing' that happens? What evidence do you have that supports either of those things?

Relativity only applies to calculated time. Fail.

So you seem to think, again, without any such evidence.

Considering the evidence you think you have given does not even pertain to what I have been talking about this whole time, I think it's pretty obvious you really do not understand "my theory".

My understanding of your understanding of the topic revolves entirely around this:

"..using the observational definition of time, the speed of light depends on its direction of propagation relative to the observer. (Again, this is a property of spacetime, and not a property of light. All relativistic particles such as neutrinos would also move at different speeds in different directions.) Light travels at the canonical speed of 1,079 million km/hr only when moving tangentially relative to an observer. It moves at half the canonical value when moving directly away from the observer, and it moves infinitely fast when travelling directly toward the observer—travelling instantaneously from point A to point B."

The theory of relativity was proven entirely because of the nature of space-time - it was even einstein to solidified the idea that space-time was a thing which is now a mainstay of physics.
This also said a great deal about gravity, which has been proven to warp space time around mass which all goes into his all-too-famous E=MC^2 equation which equivicates mass and energy as the same thing.
So special relativity nor general relativity does not merely apply to light - but also to the nature of spacetime to which your 'theory' does apply.
Given that light moves 'canonically' at exactly the same speed in all directions to any observer, this is not only saying something about relativistic particles, such as the neutrinos you've mentioned, but also light and space-time.

This theory not only doesn't possess any kind of evidence that you've shown to support it, but it also violates relativity for the reason that the proven theory states that the speed of light is constant and space-time does not allow the speed of light to be anything other than its cannonical speed, which my youtube video also proved using simple observation and mathmatics to show that the universe must be old, very large, and the speed of light must be constant.

This version of the universe does not have a stated size but an assumed age (because you're a creationist who has stated what you believe the earth's age to be) and a speed of light that changes to the observer depending on its direction - which you stated to be infinate when moving towards the observer (which is impossible) and half when moving away.

Given that you state that this is the nature of space-time but you do not explain how space-time allows light to propogate in this manner - especially when it's relative to the observer.

This not only violates relativity for all of those reasons but it leaves it a crying mess that is forced to call special victims unit. I understand how your theory works. What you don't understand is why it's a catastrophic failure, despite an easy-to-understand youtube video that I graciously provided and several athiests who have all stated and linked evidence to the contrary.

So when he agrees with your pre-conceived ideas he is a legit Scientist, but when a Scientist doesn't agree with your idea he is not one? That makes so much sense now! That way you always look like you agree with the "legit" Scientists out there! When in all actuality you have cherry-picked the guys you want to call legit and thrown out the ones that disagree with you and call them not real scientists.

I would love LOVE to see a legit scientist confirm any of this. I'm dead serious on that matter.

---

Ok, let's make an agreement, since I am kind of getting tired of this. How about we agree to both use our own sources and we will discuss their validity based on the material given? So I won't make fun of your youtube videos and you won't make fun of things just because they are from ICR or CMI? Deal? I think this will be much more productive and we will get more accomplished. Fair?

[Anomalocaris]

Ok, let's make an agreement, since I am kind of getting tired of this. How about we agree to both use our own sources and we will discuss their validity based on the material given? So I won't make fun of your youtube videos and you won't make fun of things just because they are from ICR or CMI? Deal? I think this will be much more productive and we will get more accomplished. Fair?

Your sources are ridiculous beyond the most lax standard of credibility, and failure to give them their due ridicule would give them a completely false air of some minimum of respectability. If your concept of discussing validity is based on using one piece of shit from your few favorite "creation scientists" to justify another, then I must decline to refrain from making fun of each link in your circular chain of shit.

You can reply with something vaguely similar sounding about ours. I have no doubt you will do that since aping serious arguments by substituting scientific facts with creationist bullshit is your primary tactic. But that reply would nonetheless reflect a more fundamental divide between us then your choice of tactic, which is you consider a myth from a rather repulsive band of desert nomades to be infallible absolute truths around which all must to made to conform, while we've found the myth to be in complete disagreement with what we’ve found and is therefore a complete piece of fictional garbage. The divide between us is as wide as any could possibly be. There is no need to waste time trying to bridge the unbridgeable. So long as you deem bible for some fundamental reason to be absolutely true and therefore are not honest open to critical review of just how good it is, we can not really discuss anything.

[Autumnlicious]

---

Kind of funny you would say that. So how did people measure time before Calculated Time was first used in the 20th Century? People just not believe in time back then? Did they not have a way of measuring it? Wow you own all of those Phsyics books? The one I own is Raymond A. Serway, John W. Jewett, “Physics for Scientists and Engineers,6 Ed”. Yes it does have a section about observational time vs. calculated time so you can stop saying I just made those up. As I have said nearly a dozen times before, you are arguing against something that Creationists do not even claim (that light propagates an-isotropically using claculated time), so I really do not know why you continue to beat that dead horse.

Do I need to own them? Is that a necessary component of reading or understand them or does using libraries and the internet not count?
No, Statler, back then people counted seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks, months, years, decades, centuries, millenia, millions of years, and billions of years the same way we do and certainly during all the times of most ancient civilizations on record.

I've done every search I could on google and otherwise. There are no books, websites, articles, blogs, or anything - not even AIG or similar websites - that contain any information about
a) an-isotropic propogation of light
b) calculated/observational time as being two different things

The only thing that I can conclude based on this is that a) the only place this exists is in that one textbook or b) it doesn't exist at all. I assume you're misreading it somehow if it is, in fact, there but I haven't found the book online, or rather I did but there were no preview portions of it that I could peruse through and I haven't made rounds at the library yet this week.
There are no disparate definitions of time according to any source I can find and those physics textbooks I linked were the only ones I had time to search through out of the dozens more I googled.

As such, I have no reason to believe either of those things are actually anything more than an attempt to explain how the universe can violate the laws the physics and either be much smaller than it's observed to be (physically impossible - proven by that hated youtube video) or light has to be reaching us much faster than it actually is observed to be reaching us (physically impossible, proven by that hated youtube video.) In conclusion, I can only assume that you don't believe in gravity or physics and your sources are non-existant.

If I can find your textbook somewhere - online or otherwise, I'll look at it at the first available opportunity but the fact that I can't find this supposedly basic creation-proving theory anywhere else (including other physics textbooks) seems to point toward it being not an actual thing of any relevance to anything.

Actually AIG doesn't believe in a global flood on Mars. So I suggest you actually read the New York Times article and stop blaming all of this on AIG. It is not their fault you can't find the article it is the New York Times fault I guess (or your own). This website cites the same article, so contrary to your little conspiracy theory, I am quite sure it existed.

http://partners.nytimes.com/library/nati...index.html

If you had actually checked the links I showed you, you'd understand better how wrong you are. The NY times article doesn't exist anymore. The one you gave above was the one I showed you which is a list of links that include the broken link to the actual article that no longer actually exists but moves you to the main NY Times page. I showed that it actually exists because of that link you fed back to me and it includes a small amount of preview information, but the article is gone.
You'll also note the other links I gave which also gave accounts of the same story and AIG is the ONLY ONE that mentions a flood on mars and an upheaval as you described.
Granted I haven't quite gotten as amused with your statements as you have with mine, but your understanding of science makes just about everything you say as quotable, in context. I just don't care that much.
I should also note that I read the article as it appeared copied on that forum I linked but I can't be 100% certain that its' a copy paste, so I didn't bother to do more than mention it becauese at worst it's a second article accredited to the same source.

Still using your high school textbooks eh? lol. Non-catestrophic plate technoics would take a very long time, but this in turn assumes no flood so you cannot turn around and use this to argue against catestrophic plate tectonics because you'd be assuming the very thing you were trying to prove. Assuming the proof, bad bad bad.

It wasn't a high school textbook, but please, make your moving the goalposts fallacy that much more obvious, at least about as obvious as the fact that despite my ability to keep piling evidence in your direction in any way that I can you still have not refuted or explained anything with any clarity other than responding to everything I give you with "Nope. Didn't happen that way."
So go on. You're only making yourself out to appear more foolish than you already do.

"I don't need to understand what details about [evolution] that [evolutionists] believe to know it's wrong."

That's adorable but I don't care about knowing or understanding fantasy, yours or otherwise. Evolution actually happens and it's provable beyond a reasonable doubt and I've provided youtube videos using basic science and math to prove this point and now I've provided numerous textbooks and links that have outright refuted your claims.
Yet, this is the best response you've given. I'm sure you're proud of yourself.

Rapid Speciation does occur, don't make me use your own Evolutionists to argue against you. That just would not be right, kind of like Darth Vader being killed by his own light saber.

And I'm sure you'll explain it in a manner completely ignorant of how evolution or speciation has actually proven to work according to those books I linked or even your own account.
Rapid speciation doesn't allow a brown bear to become a panda bear, according to those books you've claimed to not understand in my quote above.

You have done this more than once, when you say "arc" you really mean "ark" right? Just making sure we're on the same page here. The rest of this paragraph does not make a lot of sense, but I will try to guess where you are going with this. We already discussed that rapid speciation can occur, so I don't think I have to address that any further. We can get different types of dogs really quickly using artificial selection, yes natural selection would be a bit slower but not a lot slower considering the animals would have been re-populating new empty niches and experiencing lots of selective pressures while the Earth was settling down after the flood.

As for the genetic inormation thing, were you talking about the Ecological rule that you need a minimum of 50,000 animals in a population to have a healthy population?

The fact that it can occur is one thing, but as those links (youtube and evolutionary biology books both) pointed out, that your idea of how that works is completely off-kilter for the reason that speciation, rapid or otherwise, never allows things like brown bears birthing polar bears (especially if one or both had died off in a mass extinction).
Which is a fundementally christian idea that is unabashedly wrong. As that 'foundational falsehoods of creationism' youtube videos pointed out, speciation describes the formation of new species as a result of geographic, physiological, anatomical, or behavioral factors that prevent previously interbreeding populations from breeding with each other.
What it doesn't do is allow one species to become another one that already existed - even when filling the same ecological niche. Speciation is essentially a synonym of evolution, which doesn't allow anything like what you've described - it doesn't allow you to only save one species of dog and later find all the ones that went extinct at a previous point in time.

Speaking of which, I do have to give you credit for not referring to 'Crocaduck' or some similar nonsense, though you are using the same arguement that led up that idiocy so I wouldn't be surprised if you did bring it up later.

I am sure you are aware that there are books about the fossil record written by Creationists (one of which got his Ph.D from Harvard). So your assertion that only people who know what they are talking about deny the biblical account of Creation is complete circular reasoning.

Strawman.
I've presented plenty more than mere word games despite word games being all I've been getting in return.

If there are any such creationist geologists, you've certainly done nothing to enlighten me of who these people are and what works they've done and given that all of my searches both on and offline have produced almost nothing (that almost being your physics book, but nothing yet on what you say it contains) on your 'scientific' concepts, I have no reason to believe or accept these things as true.
You haven't even provided a wikipedia page or youtube video that I could argue against or even some assinine thing from AIG or other creationist website.

Several threads, countless pages of bickering, and the only ones who have presented anything to the end of evidence are the ones arguing against creationism.
Otherwise, you're just examplifying the motivational poster that minimalist posted some time ago depicting someone with their eyes closed and fingers in their ears representing how creationists see contrary evidence.

You used an Evolutionary Biologist to talk about dendrochronology? I at least used someone with a Ph.D in Agronomy and Horticultural Sciences. I will take his word on Tree Physiology any day over Mr. Dawkins. Dawkins does not write for a like minded audience? Please tell me which Creationists are on his peer-review boards when he submits articles. They are all a bunch of like-minded non-objective Evolutionists like yourself. It's easy to get away with bad science when everyone who reviews your work practices the same bad science. Dawkins is small-time.

Moving the goalposts again?
You realize that the link I provided was a book explicitly on dendrochronology right?
Of course not, after all, why would you bother to check links?
Oh right. I mentioned "Dawkins" on a seporate but nearby note and the topic instantly shut down.
Also - peer review boards? You do know how scientific peer review works, right? Or am I going to have to explain this and provide professional links to prove this point as well?

Hardly, the first video you posted looked like something made by some guy with flash animation and Windows Movie Maker in his dorm room. What did you do before youtube? Did you just not try and argue your case?

And? So what? That doesn't detract from the points the guy makes nor does the science he uses any less correct in its use or applications or explainations.

More circular arguments. I am sure you are aware that Creation guys HAVE been published in your so called "reputable" peer reviewed journals. This must make them reputable now right? Yay!! Creation Scientists are finally reputable in the eyes of the TheDarkestAngel!

Circular arguements only apply to arguements that use circular logic.
If creationists could prove their worldview using the exact same methods as scientists, I would believe them. The problem is that they never have.
If creationists go through the same process that science uses to gather evidence, build a theory, test that theory and have success in repeated tests, tempered through peer review, then yes, I'm sure there are some that have done actual science.
My problem here is that you have yet to provide even a shred of evidence for your arguement or even people anywhere that support it.

Using observed time it does travel exactly how I said. Using calculated time it travels exactly how you said it does. You should know though that it is impossible to meausre the one way speed of light. If you can devise an experiment that does this you will win yourself a nobel prize my friend.

You're absolutely right. And that's why it's not science - there is no evidence to support it and it refutes the current laws of physics and it's apparently impossible to replicate or test.

Given that, why on earth do you even believe that this is a 'thing' that happens? What evidence do you have that supports either of those things?

Relativity only applies to calculated time. Fail.

So you seem to think, again, without any such evidence.

Considering the evidence you think you have given does not even pertain to what I have been talking about this whole time, I think it's pretty obvious you really do not understand "my theory".

My understanding of your understanding of the topic revolves entirely around this:

"..using the observational definition of time, the speed of light depends on its direction of propagation relative to the observer. (Again, this is a property of spacetime, and not a property of light. All relativistic particles such as neutrinos would also move at different speeds in different directions.) Light travels at the canonical speed of 1,079 million km/hr only when moving tangentially relative to an observer. It moves at half the canonical value when moving directly away from the observer, and it moves infinitely fast when travelling directly toward the observer—travelling instantaneously from point A to point B."

The theory of relativity was proven entirely because of the nature of space-time - it was even einstein to solidified the idea that space-time was a thing which is now a mainstay of physics.
This also said a great deal about gravity, which has been proven to warp space time around mass which all goes into his all-too-famous E=MC^2 equation which equivicates mass and energy as the same thing.
So special relativity nor general relativity does not merely apply to light - but also to the nature of spacetime to which your 'theory' does apply.
Given that light moves 'canonically' at exactly the same speed in all directions to any observer, this is not only saying something about relativistic particles, such as the neutrinos you've mentioned, but also light and space-time.

This theory not only doesn't possess any kind of evidence that you've shown to support it, but it also violates relativity for the reason that the proven theory states that the speed of light is constant and space-time does not allow the speed of light to be anything other than its cannonical speed, which my youtube video also proved using simple observation and mathmatics to show that the universe must be old, very large, and the speed of light must be constant.

This version of the universe does not have a stated size but an assumed age (because you're a creationist who has stated what you believe the earth's age to be) and a speed of light that changes to the observer depending on its direction - which you stated to be infinate when moving towards the observer (which is impossible) and half when moving away.

Given that you state that this is the nature of space-time but you do not explain how space-time allows light to propogate in this manner - especially when it's relative to the observer.

This not only violates relativity for all of those reasons but it leaves it a crying mess that is forced to call special victims unit. I understand how your theory works. What you don't understand is why it's a catastrophic failure, despite an easy-to-understand youtube video that I graciously provided and several athiests who have all stated and linked evidence to the contrary.

So when he agrees with your pre-conceived ideas he is a legit Scientist, but when a Scientist doesn't agree with your idea he is not one? That makes so much sense now! That way you always look like you agree with the "legit" Scientists out there! When in all actuality you have cherry-picked the guys you want to call legit and thrown out the ones that disagree with you and call them not real scientists.

I would love LOVE to see a legit scientist confirm any of this. I'm dead serious on that matter.

---

Ok, let's make an agreement, since I am kind of getting tired of this. How about we agree to both use our own sources and we will discuss their validity based on the material given? So I won't make fun of your youtube videos and you won't make fun of things just because they are from ICR or CMI? Deal? I think this will be much more productive and we will get more accomplished. Fair?

Only if your equating the quality of "science" from the ICR on the par of youtube.

From the NCSE:

The Institute for Creation Research suffered a significant legal defeat in its lawsuit over the Texas Higher Education Coordination Board's 2008 decision to deny the ICR's request for a state certificate of authority to offer a master's degree in science education from its graduate school. A June 18, 2010, ruling in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas found (PDF, p. 38) that "ICRGS [the Institute for Creation Research Graduate School] has not put forth evidence sufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact with respect to any claim it brings. Thus, Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on the totality of ICRGS's claims against them in this lawsuit."

As NCSE's Glenn Branch explained in Reports of the NCSE, "When the Institute for Creation Research moved its headquarters from Santee, California, to Dallas, Texas, in June 2007, it expected to be able to continue offering a master's degree in science education from its graduate school. ... But the state's scientific and educational leaders voiced their opposition, and at its April 24, 2008, meeting, the Texas Higher Education Coordination Board unanimously voted to deny the ICR's request for a state certificate of authority to offer the degree." Subsequently, the ICR appealed the decision, while also taking its case to the court of public opinion with a series of press releases and advertisements in Texas newspapers.

REF: http://ncse.com/news/2010/06/legal-defeat-icr-005583

How can we not make fun of a joke institution being struck down in ultra conservative Texas? I guess being dishonest will always hurt.