Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Nichiren

---

P.S. mr "adult" poster-dude...

"Light year" is NOT a term to describe TIME. It only describes..

"As defined by the International Astronomical Union (IAU), a light-year ( or light year) is the distance that light travels in a vacuum in one Julian year.[1] The speed of light is 299,792,458 metres per second. Therefore, a light-year (symbol: ly) is a unit of length, equal to just under 1013 kilometres.

The light-year is often used to measure distances to stars and other distances on a galactic scale, especially in non-specialist and popular science publications. The preferred unit in astrometry is the parsec, because it can be more easily derived from, and compared with, observational data. The parsec is defined as the distance at which an object will appear to move one arcsecond of parallax when the observer moves one astronomical unit perpendicular to the line of sight to the observer, and is equal to approximately 3.26 light-years.[1]"

"As defined by the International Astronomical Union (IAU), a light-year ( or light year) is the distance that light travels in a vacuum in one Julian year.

"M. E. J. Gheury de Bray, in 1927, was probably the first to propose a decreasing speed of light. He based his conclusion on measurements spanning 75 years. Later, he became more convinced and twice published his results in Nature, possibly the most prestigious scientific journal in the world. He emphasized, “If the velocity of light is constant, how is it that, invariably, new determinations give values which are lower than the last one obtained ... There are twenty-two coincidences in favour of a decrease of the velocity of light, while there is not a single one against it.”

"No scientific law requires the speed of light to be constant. [color=red]Many simply ASSUME that it is constant, and of course, changing old ways of thinking is sometimes difficult."[/color]

Russian cosmologist, V. S. Troitskii, at the Radiophysical Research Institute in Gorky, is also questioning some old beliefs. He concluded, independently of Setterfield, that the speed of light was 10 billion times faster at time zero! Furthermore, he attributed the cosmic microwave background radiation and most redshifts to this rapidly decreasing speed of light. Setterfield reached the same conclusion concerning redshifts by a different method. If either Setterfield or Troitskii is correct, the big bang theory will fall. "

Originally posted by Nichiren
reply to post by NOTurTypical

---

No apologies necessary.

Age of earth: 6000 years. Wow, fascinating! I'm not trying to mock you, but is your entire world-view based on the bible? What scientific evidence do you have to support your point?

i myself could go on and on about what I have learned, but if you truly want to see the arguments of Creationists and determine if their interpretation of the data is correct to Evolutionists then you must embark on the same journey I did, read their explanation for the data, and not just dismiss it as false without weighing it as a separate interpretation of the data we can observe and repeat.

Creationists use the exact same data as Evolutionists, the interpretation of that data is different, and one side is correct, and another side is incorrect. But one must look at both sides of the argument.

I appreciate your questions, and I appreciate your honesty. I also appreciate your change in how you view me, not as a "crazy" creationist, but someone who has a brain as well as you do, but interprets the same information differently.
God bless.

P.S. Great places to start if you want to research the argument put forth by Creation Scientists are these:

Center For Scientific Creation

Answers In Genesis

Dr. Dino.com Creation Seminars

Remember, when reviewing this information fight the natural urge to dismiss it on Ad Hominem reasoning, look at the facts presented themselves, judge the facts themselves apart from those presenting the facts. this is hard to do, very hard, but it's the only way to do so with intellectual honesty.

I enjoy talking to you even though we disagree, our conversation has helped me a great deal, especially to realize i was in error in how I combated you on the last page. I felt I was speaking the truth, however I felt shame at the end of the day because I didn't present my side in love and with respect for your personal convictions.

Hope your day is blessed, i have to depart for work but I'm eager to return tonight to this site. Send me a U2U my friend if you will, I'll never turn away someone who wants to understand me, and I can always learn something from everyone I encounter.

Peace be with you.

That's true if the celestial objects didn't interact with each other and their paths stayed undisturbed since the big bang. But that's clearly not the case. There have been catastrophic events (supernovae) that have altered the orbit and spin of entire planets.

Astronomers detect new long-period comets at the rate of about one per month. By that rough estimate, 24,000 long-period comets have entered the inner solar system since the time of Christ! Orbital analysis show that these approaching comets generally take several million years to orbit the sun, and, as they are more or less randomly distributed in their orbits, we may deduce that the bulk of them are presently beyond the range of our telescopes. Only the exceptional comet, at any given moment, would be in that small portion of its orbit which crosses the inner solar system.
source: www.talkorigins.org...

I beg to differ. Please don't take this the wrong way, but here is the rub. Yes, Creationists use scientific data, but only the part that fits their belief-system. When there is data, like my comet example above, that don't fit the paradigm it's conveniently discarded or deemed inaccurate.

Sorry to harp on the same string again, but that's why I was so adamant about the term light-year. It is a scientific term for distance related to TIME. If you use a scientific term, but use your own definition (c not being a constant) we have no common base for an honest, fruitful discussion IMHO.

I don't view you as crazy and me calling you a 12-year-old was uncalled for. But it puzzles me how you can believe that our planet is only a few thousand years old. To me that's on the same level as saying the earth is flat. At one time that statement made sense, because humans didn't know any better, but we have evolved.

When time permits I will look at your links with an open mind. Trust me I'm trying hard.

Have a great weekend too.

that's not exactly what I said, the modern Bible versions are a great translations in the most cases, but the manuscripts they were translated were corrupt.