Jump to content


Photo

Universe


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
45 replies to this topic

#1 banana

banana

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 8 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 22
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Steiermark, Austria

Posted 06 November 2011 - 04:30 AM

Let's go directly to the point.
The thing i always wanted to have explained by a young earth creationist is this:
If the universe is only 6000 years old, how can we see stars that are further then 6000 light years away from us?
Thanks in advance

#2 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 06 November 2011 - 05:05 AM

Let's go directly to the point.
The thing i always wanted to have explained by a young earth creationist is this:
If the universe is only 6000 years old, how can we see stars that are further then 6000 light years away from us?
Thanks in advance

I don't know that much about astronomy, but here is someone who does. http://www.answersin...stant-starlight

I will say this though, concerning parallax. You can show it to be relative or proportional, when two objects are at an equidistant ratio from the viewer. That is arc seconds do not show a universal distance that is always the same. It depends on the optical sphere you are doing parallax in.

Imagine you are riding down the road in the midwest. There are no hills,so you can see from horizon to horizon. To your right, you see a water tower on the edge of the horizon that appears to be moving with you. Then suddenly a far away barn seems to slowly "pass" between you and the water tower. You have just seen parallax. With the right surveying tools, you should be able to measure how many degrees or arc seconds the barn "has moved" in relation to the water tower.

Now, at certain points you could get the same measurement of arc seconds scientists get for stars in the night sky. Why? Because the night sky is what--a half sphere. There are the same number of arc seconds in the night sky as half a view of a circular horizon.

Now the background stars are like the water tower, appearing to move with us as we take a measurement on one end of our orbit, and with us again, as we take a measurememnt at the other end of our orbit. The "movement" of the "nearby" star is measured in arc seconds. What if I could move the background stars, and the nearby stars closer to us at a proportional ratio? As long as they are at a proprtional ratio in distance from the earth, I could still take measurements on the ends of our orbit, and I would get the same measurement in arc seconds. How would you be able to tell I moved them in, if there is nothing behind the background stars?

#3 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 06 November 2011 - 05:10 AM

Let's go directly to the point.
The thing i always wanted to have explained by a young earth creationist is this:
If the universe is only 6000 years old, how can we see stars that are further then 6000 light years away from us?
Thanks in advance


Okay, getting directly to the point; the problem you’re having here, is that you are assuming stars are 6000 (and more) light years away. This is built upon the further uniformitarian assumption that the speed of light is, has been, and always will be the same (constant). BUT: beyond recorded historical data, we have absolutely no idea what the speed of light was prior to said recorded historical data, nor do we know what it will be in the future! Further, we know via the empirical scientific method, that the speed of light changes when introduced through diverse medium (water for example). Also, it has been suggested that measurements of the speed of light have varied (slowed down etc…) during recorded history.

And to throw another monkey-wrench into the uniformitarian hypothesis, we have absolutely no idea whether or not there are spatial anomalies between us and galaxies a thousand light years away (let alone 6 thousand or a million etc…) that will speed up, or slow down the speed of light as it travels toward us. We will not have any valid data for where we have not been, until we have been there!

Bottom line, any and all opinion on space and light speed, which we have not empirically tested and validated, is nothing more than presupposed guessing.

#4 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 06 November 2011 - 05:14 AM


Let's go directly to the point.
The thing i always wanted to have explained by a young earth creationist is this:
If the universe is only 6000 years old, how can we see stars that are further then 6000 light years away from us?
Thanks in advance

I don't know that much about astronomy, but here is someone who does. http://www.answersin...stant-starlight


Thanks for the link AFJ; I was eventually going to go there, but I wanted to cover some basic groundwork (foundation) first. This will normally expose (and nip in the bud) fallacious viewpoints early (since Banana wanted to get to the point).

#5 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1016 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 06 November 2011 - 06:41 AM

I think there are already a couple of threads dealing with the subject.

Thanks for the link AFJ; I was eventually going to go there, but I wanted to cover some basic groundwork (foundation) first. This will normally expose (and nip in the bud) fallacious viewpoints early (since Banana wanted to get to the point).

I think the basics have been pointed out. But let's look at the schematics again:
The argument.
Premise: "Galaxies we see are more then six thousand light years away."
Conclusion:"The Universe must be older then 6000 years" (Actually older by multiple amounts sometimes given.)
Unstated conclusion that is also a premise: "Light years is a measure of time" (because of the year in it.)
Other unstated premises:
- "speed of light has been always the same and what astronomers think it is today."
- "That the speed of light remains the same regardless of the medium it is in or what forces are present or absent."
- "That the distance between Earth and the galaxies has always been the same"
- "The light could have only be started at the beginning / There was no light already present at the beginning of creation".
As the question isn't new there are of course numerous responses to this. One of them is the appearance of age response: http://www.icr.org/a...appearance-age/
One also wonders what "Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. Gen 1:3". That sounds a bit like light being in instant existence and not like light rays starting far a way and taking way and way to one day arrive on earth.

#6 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 06 November 2011 - 07:19 AM

Let's go directly to the point.
The thing i always wanted to have explained by a young earth creationist is this:
If the universe is only 6000 years old, how can we see stars that are further then 6000 light years away from us?
Thanks in advance


Here is one hypothesis that has been tested by a statistical comparison of measurements over 200 years.


http://www.evolution...indpost&p=75065



Enjoy.

#7 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 06 November 2011 - 10:26 AM

I think there are already a couple of threads dealing with the subject.


Indeed Mark, but sometimes a newcomer either hasn't read said threads, and are therefore unaware of them; OR they are attempting to ignore said threads and are trying to side-step the facts brought up in those threads in order to “not” have those facts affect their arguments.

I prefer to go with the former, as opposed to the latter, and give the newcomer a chance to be clean in this forum. But, then again, the latter may be true; but that’s not hard to deal with as well.

#8 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 06 November 2011 - 10:28 AM

Here is one hypothesis that has been tested by a statistical comparison of measurements over 200 years.


http://www.evolution...indpost&p=75065



Enjoy.


Thanks for the link Jason, it may come in handy later on in this thread.

#9 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1016 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 06 November 2011 - 12:31 PM

Here is one hypothesis that has been tested by a statistical comparison of measurements over 200 years.
http://www.evolution...indpost&p=75065

I'd be a bit skeptical about this. For how long can we really measure the speed of light accurately? And of course how would we know what the speed of light was before that?! The method used I can see is extrapolation, which can be quite misleading as is the determining of the age of rocks.

#10 banana

banana

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 8 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 22
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Steiermark, Austria

Posted 06 November 2011 - 12:57 PM

I will try answer to everyone.

AFJ: I appreciate your humilty to admit your own ignorance in astronomy. But your humilty (not the ignorance) is definitively gone when you try to explain that the parallax method could be wrong. BTW there are so many other indipendent methods that all confirm the same (this is the beauty of science). The guy in the video himself states that the universe has a size of billion light years. And he admits that the measurements couldn't be so wrong. He also admits there is no evidence for a young universe, so why does he make this statement at all?

Ron: In your opinion it is an assumption to say that we see stars that are more then 6000 light years away, but at the other hand you make the assumption that light can travel faster then light speed in vacuum while all measurements that have been made prove exactly the opposite. No scientist not even those who belive in God would make the foolish statement of saying that the universe is smaller then 6000 ly. So i would turn it the other way around. That we can see stars that are more then 6000 light years away is A FACT, what you say is YOUR ASSUMPTION. An assumption that contraddicts Einstein and is based on no evidence at all. There is not even a plausible hypothesis behind your assumptions.

MarkForbes: What are you talking about? Let's forget all your wrong assumptions. But are you using the bible to prove something? Well i don't belive in the bible, so you can put the bible apart since it doesn't prove anything to me. And do you think your God is so funny that he provides us evidence that makes the universe look old just to fool us around? Or probably to make it easier to recognise the bad people that read a science book instead of reading the bible?

Jason777: There is not a shred of evidence that light has ever traveled faster than it does today. That graph you show is simply lying. The value that Settelfield uses to make the curve look like this is the outliner measured by Ole Rømer in 1667. Rømer himself stated that he could be wrong by plus or minus 200 km/s. At the same time the guy who made this claim (Settelfield) left out of his analysis a lot of other by far more precise experiments. Furthermore you need very precise values to make an extrapolation of the last 6000 years based on measurements of the last 200 expecially if you are getting a non linear result. And if this isn't enough, the Astronomical Journal stated that the best fit is a linear regression with slope=0. And Settelfield didn't even try to disprove what the Astronomical Journal said.
But even if every scientist who made fun of Settelfield was wrong, and Settelfield was right, which would result in the speed of light being faster in the past, this would make the universe even older. Check out why:
http://www.veoh.com/...v856995GxApbE9K

Anyway for me it is clear that everyone of who "answered" my question tried to find arguments to make what science says fit with what is written in the bible. No matter if to do that you have to disprove every existing law of physics.
Thanks for the confirmation

#11 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 06 November 2011 - 01:03 PM


Here is one hypothesis that has been tested by a statistical comparison of measurements over 200 years.
http://www.evolution...indpost&p=75065

I'd be a bit skeptical about this. For how long can we really measure the speed of light accurately? And of course how would we know what the speed of light was before that?! The method used I can see is extrapolation, which can be quite misleading as is the determining of the age of rocks.


I think that the main point here, is that the uniformity the materialists attempt to get away with has no basis in reality; and is worthy of even far greater skepticism. But, it also points out that even with less than accurate measurements; the speed of light does seem to be slowing down during that timeframe. I won’t extrapolate that out for six thousand years previous to that time frame, because we don’t know what happened over those millennia; BUT since the materialists want to claim uniformity, it seems that YEC has a far greater case for decay!

#12 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1016 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 06 November 2011 - 02:01 PM

...
MarkForbes: What are you talking about? Let's forget all your wrong assumptions. But are you using the bible to prove something? Well i don't belive in the bible, so you can put the bible apart since it doesn't prove anything to me. And do you think your God is so funny that he provides us evidence that makes the universe look old just to fool us around? Or probably to make it easier to recognise the bad people that read a science book instead of reading the bible?
...

That wasn't my wrong assumptions but yours that you need for get your conclusion going. And with that assumptions it's actually a relatively sound conclusion although one can not be certain with that either.
As for me quoting text from the bible, it's irrelevant whether you believe in it or not. All that one needs to do is use the text and see how it fits the present day facts and models about the past.
Appearance of age doesn't have anything to do with fooling around. It's about creation being complete straight from the beginning and that then may have an appearance of age in the human mind that is ignorant about the real facts of the past. If it wouldn't be it might just say: "Oh yes, it was created wholesome in the beginning, that's the reason it looks they way it does now...". You see it's possible to come to a number of conclusions with the very same facts at hand without being connect to any "fooling around". Just imagine a scene were you enter a room and see mike bend over Jack lying on the ground. On closer look you see that Mike has his hand on a knife in Jack's back. This has got the "appearance of violence to it" you'll agree. However there is more then one plausible explanation for this:
1. Mike did stab Jack with a knife.
2. Mike found Jack being stab with a knife on the ground and tries to help him.
Would you say that this has anything to do with fooling around or deceiving people?

...
Anyway for me it is clear that everyone of who "answered" my question tried to find arguments to make what science says fit with what is written in the bible. No matter if to do that you have to disprove every existing law of physics.
Thanks for the confirmation

No we didn't. What we did was show that depending on the assumptions one can interpret the testable facts within a young earth model just as good one could do it in an old earth mode. No need for disproving or breaking any laws of physics. The problem with physical laws is with other people, you may not even expect."science says" I find an odd expression to use, btw.

#13 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 06 November 2011 - 02:59 PM

Ron: In your opinion it is an assumption to say that we see stars that are more then 6000 light years away, but at the other hand you make the assumption that light can travel faster then light speed in vacuum while all measurements that have been made prove exactly the opposite.

Of course it’s an assumption banana; but it is no more of an assumption than the one you’re propagating here. That is my ‘main’ point! You and I both (along with all of science and theology) have no idea how old the universe is, at best we ALL assume. None of us have any empirical scientific data to nail it down. Further, as I alluded to before; you and I have absolutely NO idea what the speed of light at Alpha Centauri is, OR what might affect it between there and here. And there have been absolutely ZERO empirical scientific measurements between there and here to tell us what may (or may not) affect the speed of light before it gets here. Unless you’ve been there (or know anyone else who has been there) and can provide said factual data?

So, having said that, you have absolutely NOTHING that proves the opposite of what I’ve submitted.


No scientist not even those who belive in God would make the foolish statement of saying that the universe is smaller then 6000 ly.


So now, you’re calling me a fool? I would certainly hope not (please see the forum rules);

First: I at no time claimed that the “universe is smaller then 6000 years old”, although I think you actually meant LESS “than 6000 years old”, you are still incorrect, because I never asserted such a thing. My main assertion in this thread was, and still is that it is nothing more than an assumption on your part that the universe is anywhere near as old as you are wont to claim.

Second, there ARE many “scientists” who claim (based on the evidences adduced) that the universe is nowhere near as old as you are attempting to claim. So you would be incorrect on that point as well.

I would suggest that you go back and review my posts, and your claims. Then come back with a better and more informed response.

So i would turn it the other way around. That we can see stars that are more then 6000 light years away is A FACT, what you say is YOUR ASSUMPTION. An assumption that contraddicts Einstein and is based on no evidence at all. There is not even a plausible hypothesis behind your assumptions.

You can indeed ATTEMPT to turn it around banana, that is your right (to be wrong); but you will STILL only be assuming (again, my main point). And you have STILL done absolutely nothing to disprove what everyone else has posted here. And, again, Einstein only submitted a mathematical assumption that has done absolutely nothing to empirically prove how far away any stars are, that we haven’t been to, in order to validate said data that you are fanatically and dogmatically attempting to defend here.



Anyway for me it is clear that everyone of who "answered" my question tried to find arguments to make what science says fit with what is written in the bible. No matter if to do that you have to disprove every existing law of physics.
Thanks for the confirmation


Banana, what is clear is that you are being less than honest in your discourse here.

First - Did I at any time bring up the Bible, OR claim the Bible as evidentiary to any of my claims? As a matter of fact, absolutely no-one else here has claimed “the Bible as evidentiary” in their submissions either; therefore your introduction of this “red-herring” argument further taints your intent here. I would suggest you take some time and preview the forum rules (the same ones you agreed to prior to being allowed to post here) before you attempt such tactics again.

Second – I desire you to provide who the Law of Physics provides validated “Empirical Scientific Evidence” for the age of the universe, the speed of light prior to recorded history, the speed of light between Alpha Centauri, or anything else you are claiming.

#14 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 06 November 2011 - 07:21 PM

quote by banana
Jason777: There is not a shred of evidence that light has ever traveled faster than it does today. That graph you show is simply lying.


The measurements made over the last 200 years aren't lies. They actually made the measurements believe it or not and the speed of light has been observed to have exceeded the speed of 300,000 km/sec, albeit over short range, in quantum tunneling experiments (Landauer 1993, Brown 1995).

. The value that Settelfield uses to make the curve look like this is the outliner measured by Ole Rømer in 1667. Rømer himself stated that he could be wrong by plus or minus 200 km/s.


So you do admit that measurements were made? Good. That will help us to establish the principles by which the hypothesis is established.

At the same time the guy who made this claim (Settelfield) left out of his analysis a lot of other by far more precise experiments.


That isn't very realistic. There is no way to replicate an experiment that took place 200 years ago. All we can do now is make measurements of current rates.

Furthermore you need very precise values to make an extrapolation of the last 6000 years based on measurements of the last 200 expecially if you are getting a non linear result. And if this isn't enough, the Astronomical Journal stated that the best fit is a linear regression with slope=0. And Settelfield didn't even try to disprove what the Astronomical Journal said.


The exact precision isn't necessary if we can use statistical averages to eliminate error values.

Example: 1243566798

Statistically: 12345678910 once we correct for error.

Table 1 lists the results obtained by this method that have been found in the literature to date. If the uncertain 1675 and 1693 values are omitted, the data mean is 1701 Km/s above c now. On this basis, the hypothesis that c has been constant at its present value during these experiments can be rejected at the 96.5% confidence interval. If the other alternative is explored, a least squares linear fit to the data gives a decay of 25.9 Km/s per year, with r = - 0.982. The decay correlation is significant at the 99.97% confidence interval. In view of initial uncertainties, only the Glasenapp and Harvard values are included in the final analysis of Table 11.




AUTHORITY MEDIAN DATE ORBIT RADIUS DELAY (sec) C (Km/s)
1. Roemer 1675 - 307,600 ±5400
2. Cassini 1693 425.0 352,000
3. Delambre 1738 ±71 493.2 303,320
4. Martin 1759 493.0 303,440
5. Encyc.Brit. 1771 495.0 302,220
6. Glasenapp 1861 ±13 498.57 300,050
7. Sampson 1876.5 ±32 498.64 300,011
7. Harvard 1876.5 ±32 498.79 ±0.02 299,921 ±13



http://setterfield.o...ort/report.html



Which astronomical journal are you referring to?



Enjoy.

#15 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 06 November 2011 - 08:24 PM

**Mod Hat On**
A post from Banana was removed due to Ad hominem attacks, Clear cases of misrepresentation, Trolling, repeated cases of red-herrings, straw-men, false allegations, and other devices contrary to honest debate, and borderline complaining about moderating.
If a member cannot reply honestly, and back up what they are attempting to claim as "facts", with ACTUAL facts, they will relinquish their privilege from posting here and be removed from this forum.
**Mod Hat Off**

#16 banana

banana

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 8 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 22
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Steiermark, Austria

Posted 06 November 2011 - 08:46 PM

The measurements made over the last 200 years aren't lies. They actually made the measurements believe it or not.

oh yeah they are not lies i never said that they are lies, just that they are not precise at all. what Setterfiel says is a lye. he picked and choosed the experiments he wanted. btw why do all experiments of the last 20 year give a constans value of the speed of light? did the decay suddenly stop?
read this:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c-decay.html

That isn't very realistic. There is no way to replicate an experiment that took place 200 years ago. All we can do now is make measurements of current rates.

that isn't necessary. we know the conditions they had at that time and we know that they could not mesure precisely, they also knew it just they didn't know exactly how precise their mesurements could have been.

The exact precision isn't necessary if we can use statistical averages to eliminate error values.

Example: 1243566798

Statistically: 12345678910 once we correct for error.


really? if you think so we can use the C14 method to date things up to 10 billion years. just given enough measurements we can eliminate the statistical errors.


AUTHORITY MEDIAN DATE ORBIT RADIUS DELAY (sec) C (Km/s)
1. Roemer 1675 - 307,600 ±5400
2. Cassini 1693 425.0 352,000
3. Delambre 1738 ±71 493.2 303,320
4. Martin 1759 493.0 303,440
5. Encyc.Brit. 1771 495.0 302,220
6. Glasenapp 1861 ±13 498.57 300,050
7. Sampson 1876.5 ±32 498.64 300,011
7. Harvard 1876.5 ±32 498.79 ±0.02 299,921 ±13


can't you even see it with your own eyes that the speed here is increasing then decreasing then increasing again and then finally decreasing again. this is a great proof of your theory!

Which astronomical journal are you referring to?

If i say "the astronomical journal" which one do you think i'm referring to? http://en.wikipedia....nomical_Journal
the most important journal of astronomy, you ignore that it exists, wich makes me conclude you are ignorant in astronomy.
It's exactly the same as if you want to discuss about classical music, but you never heard of Mozart.
I have no words anymore...

#17 banana

banana

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 8 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 22
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Steiermark, Austria

Posted 06 November 2011 - 08:58 PM

**Mod Hat On**
A post from Banana was removed due to Ad hominem attacks, Clear cases of misrepresentation, Trolling, repeated cases of red-herrings, straw-men, false allegations, and other devices contrary to honest debate, and borderline complaining about moderating.
If a member cannot reply honestly, and back up what they are attempting to claim as "facts", with ACTUAL facts, they will relinquish their privilege from posting here and be removed from this forum.
**Mod Hat Off**


yeah that just shows you where just scared of the things i was telling. there is no reason you should delete it otherwise.

#18 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 06 November 2011 - 09:26 PM

quote by banana
oh yeah they are not lies i never said that they are lies, just that they are not precise at all. what Setterfiel says is a lye. he picked and choosed the experiments he wanted.


Setterfield listed every measurement that can be found in the literature. That isn't typical of cherry picking and certainly not lying.

read this:
http://www.talkorigi...qs/c-decay.html


In summary: God doesn't exist so any science supportive of Setterfield's hypothesis doesn't exist either. :lol:

that isn't necessary. we know the conditions they had at that time and we know that they could not mesure precisely, they also knew it just they didn't know exactly how precise their mesurements could have been.


They were confident enough to include +/- errors to their calculations and hundreds of physicists over hundreds of years agree with their math. I find it incredibly unbelievable that you can prove them wrong by simply saying so.

really? if you think so we can use the C14 method to date things up to 10 billion years. just given enough measurements we can eliminate the statistical errors.


Except for the fact that we can show you the math that proves that radiocarbon half life is only 5568 years.

can't you even see it with your own eyes that the speed here is increasing then decreasing then increasing again and then finally decreasing again. this is a great proof of your theory!


As suggested, when the first two grossly in error calculations are deleted, then we clearly see a curve from 303-299 km/s. This isn't suggested as proof even by Setterfield, rather a confirmed prediction of a hypothesis.

If i say "the astronomical journal" which one do you think i'm referring to? http://en.wikipedia....nomical_Journal
the most important journal of astronomy, you ignore that it exists, wich makes me conclude you are ignorant in astronomy.
It's exactly the same as if you want to discuss about classical music, but you never heard of Mozart.
I have no words anymore...


There are hundreds of journals (secular and creation) that deal specifically with cosmology, astronomy, and astrophysics. Wikipedia can be edited by anybody who cares to create an account and anti-creationists love to edit anything related to creation. It's akin to talkorigins.




Enjoy.

#19 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 06 November 2011 - 09:29 PM

yeah that just shows you where just scared of the things i was telling. there is no reason you should delete it otherwise.


There are rules at this forum. You should be thankful that we are kind enough to correct the errors and let you continue your membership.



Thanks.

#20 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 06 November 2011 - 10:15 PM


**Mod Hat On**
A post from Banana was removed due to Ad hominem attacks, Clear cases of misrepresentation, Trolling, repeated cases of red-herrings, straw-men, false allegations, and other devices contrary to honest debate, and borderline complaining about moderating.
If a member cannot reply honestly, and back up what they are attempting to claim as "facts", with ACTUAL facts, they will relinquish their privilege from posting here and be removed from this forum.
**Mod Hat Off**


yeah that just shows you where just scared of the things i was telling. there is no reason you should delete it otherwise.


Amazingly enough, banana sent me two threatening e-mails; which causes one to wonder about the honesty of this individual posts to begin with.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users