The Statler Waldorf Balcony

[Zen Badger]

I too wish to see more on anisotropic light as apart from this Robert Newton( who's creationist leanings automatically make him suspect) I can find nothing in mainstream literature.

BTW you also have yet to answer my question. "Where the bible and science disagree do you take the position that science will be wrong?"

I would not have thought that it was that hard to answer.

A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice.

[orogenicman]

Historic measurements of the velocity of light from 1862 to 1977. The early discrepencies were due to methodology/instrument errors. As the methodology and instruments were refined, the measurements settled down quite nicely. So, does anyone really want to argue that these miniscule differences account for the huge discrepency between the observed size of the universe (based on the speed of light) and the magic number that creationists would have us believe is true?

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

:-) So tell us if you didn't observe the growth of the trees you cut open, how would you know that the ones you cut open with less rings were younger and the ones with more rings were older? Kind of putting the cart before the horse there.

By being able to observe numberous trees in various stages of growth simultaneously.
And, of course, when you cut them open, you can see the tree rings.

As to your old trees. Certain genuses of trees can grow up to 5 rings per year. These rings are indistinguishable from true annual rings. Pre-ice age climates also could have caused trees to grow far more than even five rings a year. So counting annual rings (dendrochronology) is not nearly as accurate as you make it out to be.

Oh wow. Scientists must never take things like that into account. Puh-leese.

Ugh, you just don't get the light thing, so I will leave it alone.

If that's the excuse you have to use to justify the fact that you have absolutely no scientific grounds for you or your "astrophysicist's" theories, then go for it.

Wow, I had no idea that Colorado State was a Christian School! You learn something everyday. So can you tell us all what other "Christian" schools give out doctorates in Astrophysics? I am sure you are fully aware that in order for a school to give a graduate degree, that program must first be approved by all the other Universities in that State right? So even the graduate degrees that are given out at Christian Universities have been given the green light by secular schools.

I'll say that I'm forced to take both your and your "astrophysicist's" claims to prominance in any thing even remotely related to science with a grain of salt, at least in the fields in which creationism is opposed, which is virtually all of them.

Wow you dodged a lot there. You never answered, what happens when two things are supposedly the same age, but when you date the organic matter with radio-carbon dating it comes out to a vastly different age than the non-organic matter that is dated with radio-metric dating? We see this a lot with fossils that still have some organic matter left. Which date do you accept then?

How did I know they were the same age if the test churned out two different ages for the same material?
This looks like a fallacy by Rhetorical Question or someone goofed by testing carbon-14 with a different radiogenic test than the one designed to date carbon 14 or they picked a contaminated sample or any number of issues that could be solved by smarter or more sensible testing.

Scientists do things like test more than one sample before calling it a day to avoid situations where they might get a bad sample and they usually make sure they're testing the right material. That's just common sense.

It would not have to change the rates off the Earth for radiometric decay, only on the Earth. Go back and see the work by Dr. Newton. Using calcuated time definition the matter from off the Earth would date to be old. I know you don't get the whole time defintion thing, but give a look.

What work? You've neither shown nor have you linked me to anything this ... "genius" of a scientist who is apparently so sciency that he can out-science all of the previous centuries of observation and study.
I'm not even the one who is technially with the burden of proof as all of the evidence provided here and in reality all point away from your crackpot ideas that you're trying to evidence for creationism, despite the mountains of evidence to the contrary.

If this above response is all you have to everything everyone has said about radiometric dating thus far on this and other threads, then you really have nothing to disprove radiometric dating. Any of it outside of proven hoaxes. Your light theory violates some of the most well-established scientific principles in modern physics, and all of your other ideas are just as well thought out and NONE of them have been backed up by anything you have provided here.
You're constantly complaining about us using youtube or wikipedia and when one one of us does link something you accept, you've only moved the goalposts further because apparently, according to your reasoning, your theories are valid scientifically despite absolutely no public, peer reviewed papers of your own. You haven't even provided any links or evidence of any kind - not even bad evidence.

Either put up or accept that you're wrong.

You never gave us the specific passage that supposedly says the Earth is flat, so I guess I will just assume it does not exist.

You do that. After all, I'm sure a creationist at some point is going to argue that spheres have corners and ends.

[Zen Badger]

Statler Waldorf Wrote:
As to your old trees. Certain genuses of trees can grow up to 5 rings per year. These rings are indistinguishable from true annual rings. Pre-ice age climates also could have caused trees to grow far more than even five rings a year. So counting annual rings (dendrochronology) is not nearly as accurate as you make it out to be.

"Pre-ice age climates" So you are using old earth evidence to refute old earth evidence.

[Anomalocaris]

Why do you bother with that piece of shit?

[Zen Badger]

Why do you bother with that piece of shit?

'Cos I find him amusing.

[Anomalocaris]

Amusing, sure, but must you talk to it?

[Zen Badger]

Well, he's too far away to poke with a stick

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

Why do you bother with that piece of shit?

I just find this entertaining. I'm not sure I can explain it better than that.
Like remember that Bill Cosby show "Kids Say the Darndest Things?"
Creationists are like that for me.

[Zen Badger]

Is it just me or has stat-wal run off crying?

Ah well, we'll just chalk that up as another kill.