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

[Hans Blaster]

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

They do not say what you think they say.

Sometimes it is so clear that they just don't understand how strong the evidence against them really is. I almost pity them, but then they throw that "unrightousness" nonsense and walk up to the 1-meter hoop with my basketball.

 

[The Righterzpen]

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

One small one is E = Mc^2.

OK - if that's true; what about the distance of things? Again, how far away stars are is an assumption. Especially if the universe is expanding faster and faster the more it expands. Which.... what would that do the speed of light? If the faster things go they "gain mass" than how could this "expanding universe theory" actually be true?

Not saying it isn't true; but if it is; it would necessitate a change in the laws that would govern how that would happen. Which would theoretically include laws regarding the speed of light.

 

[Hans Blaster]

So prove to me all astronomers follow the "old earth" time model.

Astronomers don't care about the Earth. If anything its atmosphere is a hinderance. Astronomy is the study of *everything but the Earth*.

 

[VirOptimus]

OK - if that's true; what about the distance of things? Again, how far away stars are is an assumption. Especially if the universe is expanding faster and faster the more it expands. Which.... what would that do the speed of light? If the faster things go they "gain mass" than how could this "expanding universe theory" actually be true?

Not saying it isn't true; but if it is; it would necessitate a change in the laws that would govern how that would happen. Which would theoretically include laws regarding the speed of light.

All of this is trivial to learn if one is willing.

 

[Hans Blaster]

OK - if that's true; what about the distance of things? Again, how far away stars are is an assumption.

I just showed that the speed of light has been measured to deep in to the Universe, far beyond the limit in which individual stars can be observed. It is the same as here.

 

[The Righterzpen]

Sometimes it is so clear that they just don't understand how strong the evidence against them really is. I almost pity them, but then they throw that "unrightousness" nonsense and walk up to the 1-meter hoop with my basketball.

Well, well well; looks like the scientists are even saying the speed of light isn't guaranteed to be consistent either.

Is The Speed of Light Constant?

 

[The Righterzpen]

Gee, there's an awful lot science doesn't seem to know for sure!

 

[Subduction Zone]

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

You will refuse to understand since that has already been done.

Do you understand the concept of a minimum age?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Gee, there's an awful lot science doesn't seem to know for sure!

No, there is an awful lot that you do not understand at all!

 

[The Righterzpen]

Another article you clearly dont understand.

LOL - they are saying the speed of light is relative; "which is true". It doesn't travel as fast through water as it does through a vacuum; that is assuming the measurement is consistently accurate and that the assumption that photons have no mass is actually true.

For if a photon can actually carry mass; than that changes the entire ball game!

 

[Hans Blaster]

Especially if the universe is expanding faster and faster the more it expands. Which.... what would that do the speed of light? If the faster things go they "gain mass" than how could this "expanding universe theory" actually be true?

It would do nothing to the speed of light.

Space is expanding. Space doesn't have mass so the Einstein relativistic mass formula doesn't apply to it.

The Universe is clearly expanding as any number of dozens of classes astronomical measurements demonstrate.

 

[coffee4u]

Science is a description of physical reality, denying it is denying physical reality.

My point stands.

Science, (and lets be clear here I am talking about evolution) is what people think was the past physical reality. They are taking what they can see and test now and saying this is how it always was, this shows us the past. Yet they don't have the past to test or see, so it is based on the assumption that the past was the same, the same physical world, the same laws.
When I deny the findings of science I am saying that the past physical reality was not the same as what you experience now so the conclusions about it are faulty. So no, I don't deny the present physical reality I simply deny that it's the same reality as the past.

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK - if that's true; what about the distance of things? Again, how far away stars are is an assumption. Especially if the universe is expanding faster and faster the more it expands. Which.... what would that do the speed of light? If the faster things go they "gain mass" than how could this "expanding universe theory" actually be true?

Not saying it isn't true; but if it is; it would necessitate a change in the laws that would govern how that would happen. Which would theoretically include laws regarding the speed of light.

No, astronomers understand how fast the universe is expanding.

You are grasping at straws when you try to use concepts that are beyond your ability to understand.

 

[VirOptimus]

LOL - they are saying the speed of light is relative; "which is true". It doesn't travel as fast through water as it does through a vacuum; that is assuming the measurement is consistently accurate and that the assumption that photons have no mass is actually true.

For if a photon can actually carry mass; than that changes the entire ball game!

Uhm, yes, its known that light travels at different speed through different mediums, and?

 

[VirOptimus]

Science, (and lets be clear here I am talking about evolution) is what people think was the past physical reality. They are taking what they can see and test now and saying this is how it always was, this shows us the past. Yet they don't have the past to test or see, so it is based on the assumption that the past was the same, the same physical world, the same laws.
When I deny the findings of science I am saying that the past physical reality was not the same as what you experience now so the conclusions about it are faulty. So no, I don't deny the present physical reality I simply deny that it's the same reality as the past.

Thats not how science (reality) works.

 

[The Righterzpen]

You will refuse to understand since that has already been done.

Do you understand the concept of a minimum age?

Proves what? I've posted several articles now that state the scientists themselves admit the method of measurements are inconsistent.

We're on to the speed of light now; which scientists are saying they can't prove that's consistent either. Based on their methods of measurement and assumptions they have that photons have no mass.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Well, well well; looks like the scientists are even saying the speed of light isn't guaranteed to be consistent either.

That's why they measure it in the distant Universe. So far, it is constant.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Science, (and lets be clear here I am talking about evolution) is what people think was the past physical reality. They are taking what they can see and test now and saying this is how it always was, this shows us the past. Yet they don't have the past to test or see, so it is based on the assumption that the past was the same, the same physical world, the same laws.
When I deny the findings of science I am saying that the past physical reality was not the same as what you experience now so the conclusions about it are faulty. So no, I don't deny the present physical reality I simply deny that it's the same reality as the past.

When you deny reality you take on a burden of proof.

 

[The Righterzpen]

Uhm, yes, its known that light travels at different speed through different mediums, and?

But you just said that the speed of light is consistent and therefore an accurate measure of the age of the universe.

Really rots when the scientists themselves prove you wrong isn't it?

 

[VirOptimus]

But you just said that the speed of light is consistent and therefore an accurate measure of the age of the universe.

Really rots when the scientists themselves prove you wrong isn't it?

The speed of light is consistent. Your quoted article even says so.

That it will vary when going though different mediums does not change that.

C is the speed of light in a vacuum. Thats very very basic science.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Proves what? I've posted several articles now that state the scientists themselves admit the method of measurements are inconsistent.

We're on to the speed of light now; which scientists are saying they can't prove that's consistent either. Based on their methods of measurement and assumptions they have that photons have no mass.

No, you posted articles t

OK - if that's true; what about the distance of things? Again, how far away stars are is an assumption. Especially if the universe is expanding faster and faster the more it expands. Which.... what would that do the speed of light? If the faster things go they "gain mass" than how could this "expanding universe theory" actually be true?

Not saying it isn't true; but if it is; it would necessitate a change in the laws that would govern how that would happen. Which would theoretically include laws regarding the speed of light.

The rate of expansion is rather small.That is taken in when they measure how far away very distant objects are.

 

[coffee4u]

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.

As I have said here many time, God never said that the earth is flat. The shape is of no importance.
If there was a verse where God said "The earth is flat" I would accept it as flat.