Why I'm not a young earth creationist...

[VirOptimus]

This is getting funnier and funnier.

 

[The Righterzpen]

Every astronomer has to acknowledge physical reality, and reality tells us the universe is old.

LOL - then prove it. Prove how physical reality tells the universe is old.

 

[VirOptimus]

LOL - then prove it. Prove how physical reality tells the universe is old.

I'm not responsible for your education.

 

[The Righterzpen]

This is getting funnier and funnier.

yeah, it is; you guys have not been able to back your assumptions up with science.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The only reality that I subscribe to is what God has told us in scripture. If scripture happens to coincide with science then that is nice but it doesn't bother me if it doesn't.
I am not here to talk science, I really don't care about it. I posted to reply to the OP who said they wanted a YEC view, so that is what I gave. I am a YEC because this is what scripture teaches and I believe this is what God did.

But that is not "What God told us". That is only your interpretation of the Bible. If you are going to be literal in your interpretation God also told us that the Earth is flat.

One way to test your interpretation is to see if it lines up with reality. Neither YECism or flat Earth beliefs do. That is a sign that it is time to reinterpret the Bible.

 

[The Righterzpen]

I'm not responsible for your education.

Good thing! I'd be misled if I listened to you.

 

[VirOptimus]

yeah, it is; you guys have not been able to back your assumptions up with science.

Thats not how it works.

 

[VirOptimus]

Good thing! I'd be misled if I listened to you.

I dont know how you got your ideas about science, but you are in error about most of it.

 

[The Righterzpen]

Not this garbage again.

You told me "X, Y and Z" and I used the very science that you stated proved your point to prove you wrong.

What else could it be than but you hold the truth in unrighteousness?

 

[Hans Blaster]

I know what they say the speed of light is. Do we know that has remained consistent through time? Do we know that the things they observe are really as far away as they think they are? Again, those are just guesses too.

The speed of light is constant to within the measurement tolerance to a redshift of 3.

Measuring the speed of light with ultra-compact radio quasars

This is not guesses, it is measurement.

 

[VirOptimus]

The speed of light is constant to within the measurement tolerance to a redshift of 3.

Measuring the speed of light with ultra-compact radio quasars

This is not guesses, it is measurement.

Facts wont matter.

 

[The Righterzpen]

I dont know how you got your ideas about science, but you are in error about most of it.

Only thing I've pointed out to any of you is that the dating methods are stated by the very scientists you all believe; are inaccurate and inconsistent.

 

[VirOptimus]

Only thing I've pointed out to any of you is that the dating methods are stated by the very scientists you all believe; are inaccurate and inconsistent.

No, you really havent. But you are too ignorant in science to understand this.

 

[Hans Blaster]

You told me "X, Y and Z" and I used the very science that you stated proved your point to prove you wrong.

What else could it be than but you hold the truth in unrighteousness?

No you didn't. You've proved nothing. You have a remarkable record of wrongness in this dialog.

 

[The Righterzpen]

The speed of light is constant to within the measurement tolerance to a redshift of 3.

Measuring the speed of light with ultra-compact radio quasars

This is not guesses, it is measurement.

It's a current measurement; but just as with the amount of carbon or argon in the environment; has that measurement remained consistent through time?

And if it is consistent through time - what if they aren't accurately measuring how far away stars actually are (or aren't)?

Remember.... Hubbell's expanding universe theory. (Fits in with the 2nd law of thermodynamics. = order to chaos.)

 

[Hans Blaster]

Wasn't it Hubble who came up with the expanding universe theory?

No. He was the first to *measure* it. The theory already existed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I know what they say the speed of light is. Do we know that has remained consistent through time? Do we know that the things they observe are really as far away as they think they are? Again, those are just guesses too.

There is no absolute science to dating the age of the cosmos; or how big the cosmos is. Or whether or not it's remained consistent. They say the cosmos is expanding. And the "bigger" it gets the "faster" it "expands". Entropy - things go from a state of order to a state of chaos.

Wasn't it Hubble who came up with the expanding universe theory?

Yes, we do know that it was constant. Changing the speed of light has massive implications.

One small one is E = Mc^2.

 

[The Righterzpen]

No, you really havent. But you are too ignorant in science to understand this.

I posted the articles. Not my fault if you won't read them.

Again.... "suppress the truth in unrighteousness."

You guys are proving my points really well!

 

[VirOptimus]

I posted the articles. Not my fault if you won't read them.

-snip-

We have, its just that you havent understood them at all.

They do not say what you think they say.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's a current measurement; but just as with the amount of carbon or argon in the environment; has that measurement remained consistent through time?

And if it is consistent through time - what if they aren't accurately measuring how far away stars actually are (or aren't)?

Remember.... Hubbell's expanding universe theory. (Fits in with the 2nd law of thermodynamics. = order to chaos.)

You do not understand radiometric dating. You should be trying to learn, you should not be constantly telling us that you do not understand what you are talking about. We already know that.

 

[Hans Blaster]

It's a current measurement; but just as with the amount of carbon or argon in the environment; has that measurement remained consistent through time?

And if it is consistent through time - what if they aren't accurately measuring how far away stars actually are (or aren't)?

It's a current measurement of *old* light. It *demonstrates* that the speed of light has remained constant for *BILLIONS* of years. Why would 3 billion year old light look different if measured again next week?

This paper shows how to do it even more precisely with new survey telescopes.

Precise Measurements of the Speed of Light with High-redshift Quasars: Ultra-compact Radio Structure and Strong Gravitational Lensing - IOPscience