adam wrote:onlookers opinion before they even review the arguments to bolster their presuppositions if they lean in a OEC direction. Oh well, if that's what you have to do to defend a failing theory, so be it.
wow, golly gee, I guess that's it...
Failing, huh?
http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/ageofearth.html
adam wrote:That whole argument is so wrong that I can apply it to your own assumptions and it produces the exact same "problem". According to that poorly reasoned article, God is a liar because we are seeing light from things that may or may not be there and we don't know for sure. Zoegirl, if we see a nova take place next week then God was lying for the entire time because that nova was actually there when we were deceived into thinking it was actually a star because that's what we saw.
Adam, it's as simple as this. If God created light in transit (which even you admitted had problems!), then what we are seeing isn't there, God has to have created an illusion. Do you really want to support a model of the universe that says that we CAN"T TRUST WHAT WE SEE BECAUSE GOD IS FOOLING US? The God of the Bible is a trustworthy God and He has created a trustworthy creation.
It just seems positively silly the absurd lengths that are traveled to to prop up a failing science of YEC. I have said this before. Much of Young earth creationism math is bad...see the link I provided earlier.
http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth ... #Fallacies
For example
A large class of "evidences" presented by young-Earth advocates involve measuring rates of various Earth processes, then attempting to extrapolate them backwards for millions of years. Generally, the purpose is to show that the process in question would build up to absurdity if it were allowed to continue through "evolutionary timescales." The fallacy of most claims of this type is a failure to recognize the importance of equilibrium. Most processes on Earth are in a state of balance, in which one process (such as erosion of the continents) is counteracted by others (such as emplacement of new continental material by volcanoes and tectonic uplift). Generally, processes on Earth do not build up without limit, because there is always another process that opposes the build-up, leading to the establishment of equilibrium. The method for dealing with young-Earth claims of this type is to look for the limiting process that imposes equilibrium. In some cases the balancing process has simply been overlooked, and the young-Earth claim is laid to rest by pointing it out. Other times the balancing process is not well understood or even unknown, which may seem to lend credence to young-Earth claims. However, in these cases we simply revert to the unexplained mystery. Unless we can prove that no balancing process exists (and in most cases that cannot be done), we should adopt the working hypothesis that there is a yet-to-be-discovered process that provides the equilibrium, rather than jumping to the assumption of a supernatural explanation. Examples of the One-Sided Equation Fallacy include Influx of Magma from Mantle to Form Crust, and Erosion of Sediment from Continents, Maximum Life of Comets, and Helium-4 in the Atmosphere
The source then goes on to show numerous examples of bad math. What you say is a failing theory is the own YEC model of a young earth. It's ludicrous to point fingers at scientists when there are just so many almost laughable examples (if they weren't so shameful) of fearful Christians who go to great lengths to manipulate equations just to lead to a conclusion that they have already made.
If you really want to challenge the science of OEC then go through each and every one of the pieces of evidence on the link I posted above. The chart shows over 20 methods of calculating the age of the earth and the age of the u niverse. Be my guest, show how ALL of them are wrong. YOu have come to our site and given over three pages in the last three days of just tired rhetoric. Prove all of them wrong.
And jlay, nobody here claims that the speed of light is constant. That's basic high school physics, that light will slow down with different media, the speed of light, however, can be very reliably measured. We know the speed of light in different refractive media, we know how it behaves.
adam wrote:As for laws...If a skier is skiing down a hill and he's speeding up are the laws changing?
You're joking right? Please say that you are not implying that because ACCELERATIOn exists then God's laws are not constant!! God's laws are trustworthy, they don't change. This does not mean that those laws don't govern how a mass will accelerate according to the physical properties around it. Again, basic high school physics here. Hopefully you are just joking though(!)
Miracles, as CS Lewis has describe, aren't violating the laws from God. God has simply interceded.
This debate really takes place in the uncritically accepted world of presuppositions. Presuppositions are good and necessary but dangerous if unacknowledged and misunderstood. The cosmic background radiation is about as inconclusive as it gets with loud ballyhoos of certainty slapped onto it. It's interesting, it's good to have some understanding about it but looking at background radiation doesn't have smoking gun status and anyone who thinks it does, isn't looking at the limited scope of what's observed.
Your argument is foolish because it's the same with either set of ideas.
I guess Isaiah doesn't know what he's talking about: