age of the earth thousands or billions? [Ancient Aliens vs total relism]

[Ancient Aliens]

Hey aliens seems like it has been forever, I gotta say this has dropped on my to do list for awhile, Jehovah witnesses came knocking on my door I always wanted to find out what they believe and debate them, I have had 3v1 discussion/debates [much better odds than creation vs evolution I get so seems easy] and they will be coming over looks to be weekly for awhile, so all my time has been spent lerning about there beliefs how to refute them etc. This is looking to be the easiest "religion" to refute that I have studied.
So my post from know on will have at least days in between and week here and there if that is ok, I really am interested in learning about those guys, I always wanted them to come knocking on my door, they have alredy had to go get there big guns,as the people could not anwser my questions so they get guys from even over state over the boarder to come debate with me 3v1 right know im kicking ass

keeping our replies short will really help agree with that?

That's fine. And yes, I most definitely agree with keeping our replies short.

read my previous 3 responses to why design exspalins better, so here is what all I got from your source.

The initial analysis of the human genome draft sequence reveals that our 'book of life' is multi-authored. A small but significant proportion of our genes owes their heritage not to antecedent eukaryotes but instead to bacteria. The publicly funded Human Genome Project study indicates that about 0.5% of all human genes were copied into the genome from bacterial sources. Detailed sequence analyses point to these 'horizontal gene transfer' events having occurred relatively recently. So how did the human 'book of life' evolve to be a chimaera, part animal and part bacterium? And what was the probable evolutionary impact of such gene plagiarism?


so this has nothing to do with the age of earth or age of anything this is a great example of why you should stay away from biology, assuming this did happen [no idea how they determined this] this is not evidence for evolution or age of anything , as your own sourse said it happened recently [they believe] there is nothing in the creation model that says this cannot happen or a young earth.

You are nit-picking. I am refering to the DNA of archaic, single-cellular organisms in our genome. Why is this DNA present in the human genome?

I was stalling, I hinted very strongly sorry thought i was being funny.

You say that you want these replies to be short to save you time, yet you turn around and waste my time with things like this.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

First there are many indicators from astronomy that indicate a young universe, such as comets that you ignore. than this is a self refuting argument, if you say you cant believe in a young universe because of this, or I can turn it right back on you as you said the universe is billions of years old.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i4/lighttravel.asp
horizon problem for old universe believers


http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/video/ondemand/Distant-Starlight/distant-starlightfree online to watch about distant starlight. and it also goes into detail about the horizon problem for old universe believers



but there are many possible ways of exspalining this in a young universe here are a few common ones.


http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/video/ondemand/Distant-Starlight/distant-starlightfree online to watch about distant starlight. and it also goes into detail about the horizon problem for old universe believers

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v3/n1/anisotropic-synchrony-convention from dr jason lisle technical

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v6/n1/distant-starlight
laymans anwsers mag vol6 no 1 2011 p68-71

here are 5 more
http://creation.com/a-new-cosmology-solution-to-the-starlight-travel-time-problem

https://store.creation.com/us/product_info.php?products_id=998HYPERLINK "https://store.creation.com/us/product_info.php?products_id=998&osCsid=90b3ca0f8baa89b3480fad061c12e4a2"&HYPERLINK "https://store.creation.com/us/product_info.php?products_id=998&osCsid=90b3ca0f8baa89b3480fad061c12e4a2"osCsid=90b3ca0f8baa89b3480fad061c12e4a2 possible answer
https://store.creation.com/us/product_info.php?sku=30-9-525 another

http://www.answersingenesis.org/PublicStore/product/Taking-Back-Astronomy,4574,224.aspx


new creation cosmology part one
http://www.icr.org/article/5686/
http://www.icr.org/article/5830/ part 2
http://www.icr.org/article/5870/ part 3



light in transit distant starlight
54–59 Mature creation and seeing distant starlight
Viewpoint by Don B. DeYoung
JOC Volume 24, Issue 3
Published December 2010
http://creation.com/journal-of-creation-243


there are 2 more different distant starlight models in peer review right know by creationist the others in crsq I will post when available.


I am in contact with
http://creation.com/dr-jonathan-d-sarfati

he will respond to this one if you have questions
http://creation.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter5.pdf


also i can contact both
http://creation.com/dr-donald-deyoung
and
http://creation.com/d-russell-humphreys-cv
on theres

THis is not my subject but I can email questions attacks etc

What the was that? You did exactly what I told you to refrain from doing. You just linked me 15 articles and 4 references, and you didn't offer a single statement on my point. In your own words, tell me why we receive light that is older than the proposed age of the Earth.

[total relism]

You are nit-picking. I am refering to the DNA of archaic, single-cellular organisms in our genome. Why is this DNA present in the human genome?

I went off what your source had, you seem to be changing what your referring to over and over, please give me reference and exspalin why you believe it is evidence for billions of years.

You say that you want these replies to be short to save you time, yet you turn around and waste my time with things like this.

not waste of time at all just showing it is a self refuting argument and that there are many possible models that can exspalin this 3 of witch creators of the models im in contact with to anwser objections as i posted.

What the was that? You did exactly what I told you to refrain from doing. You just linked me 15 articles and 4 references, and you didn't offer a single statement on my point. In your own words, tell me why we receive light that is older than the proposed age of the Earth.

I dont pretend to know everything in the world, I was giving you models from creationist for you to attack freeley,I dont know witch model is correct if any none does, but the fact is that it can be exspalined we simply dont have enough info to know for sure witch is correct or will it be a future model? The point is it does not disprove a young universe.

but I guess ill go with lisles if I must chose one.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v3/n1/anisotropic-synchrony-convention from dr jason lisle technical

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v6/n1/distant-starlight
laymans anwsers mag vol6 no 1 2011 p68-71

Lisle indicates that the convention of a constant speed of light is precisely that, a convention, and that a different convention allows for light to move at near infinite speeds in one direction (toward the observer) and at half the speed of light in the other (so the round trip speed is still c).


Movement affects time. How then do you synchronize two clocks at different locations?
1. If you send a radio signal, you have to account for the time it would take for the signal to reach the other clock - which is based on the speed of light....which is what you're trying to measure. So that doesn't work.
2. You could synchronize the clocks to each other and then separate them. But moving them will change time for them, so you cannot be certain they are still synchronized.

So, the only thing you can accurately measure is the 'round trip' speed of light (go to spot and come back) because you are using a single clock. Knowing the round trip speed does not tell you the one way speed. If the going to speed is faster and the coming from speed slower, they would still average to the round trip speed.

Thus, determining the one way speed of light is a convention, as in, it is decided. In most circumstances it is assumed the same speed in both directions. However, this is not necessarily true.


see you in a week or so,maybe few days

[Ancient Aliens]

I dont pretend to know everything in the world, I was giving you models from creationist for you to attack freeley,I dont know witch model is correct if any none does, but the fact is that it can be exspalined we simply dont have enough info to know for sure witch is correct or will it be a future model? The point is it does not disprove a young universe.

but I guess ill go with lisles if I must chose one.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v3/n1/anisotropic-synchrony-convention from dr jason lisle technical

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v6/n1/distant-starlight
laymans anwsers mag vol6 no 1 2011 p68-71

Again, the issue is you linking various articles from creationist sources, which you continued to do in this very post. Here's the problem. I don't have the time or the desire to disprove the thousands of "creationist models". You want to bombard me with creationist sources until I lose my patience and give up, rather than state your own opinions and do your own research.

By linking and quoting these articles, you are violating the ground rules that you initially agreed to. This is the last creationist article I am responding to. I will pretend that this is your opinion, rather than the copypasta that it is. From here on out, I better not see one more link to a creationist article, or you will have forfeited the debate. Period.

Lisle indicates that the convention of a constant speed of light is precisely that, a convention, and that a different convention allows for light to move at near infinite speeds in one direction (toward the observer) and at half the speed of light in the other (so the round trip speed is still c).

Movement affects time. How then do you synchronize two clocks at different locations?
1. If you send a radio signal, you have to account for the time it would take for the signal to reach the other clock - which is based on the speed of light....which is what you're trying to measure. So that doesn't work.
2. You could synchronize the clocks to each other and then separate them. But moving them will change time for them, so you cannot be certain they are still synchronized.

So, the only thing you can accurately measure is the 'round trip' speed of light (go to spot and come back) because you are using a single clock. Knowing the round trip speed does not tell you the one way speed. If the going to speed is faster and the coming from speed slower, they would still average to the round trip speed.

Thus, determining the one way speed of light is a convention, as in, it is decided. In most circumstances it is assumed the same speed in both directions. However, this is not necessarily true.

Before I dissect this, I want to point out that your sourced article (and it's creator) is verbose, and it's objective is to confuse. You shouldn't have taken this debate up with me, I am not confused by your source or it's implications. I also want to point out that this isn't a "model", this is a convention.

The article was also a pain in the ass to read. But I digress.

Now, your convention fails to take into account Maxwell's Equations. Light, in actuality, is electromagnetic radiation. Maxwell used certain electromagnetic constants to discern the nature of light; these constants make use of the speed of light and were assumed when Einstein posited his Theory of Relativity. So, if this convention is to adhere to the Theory of Relativity (as was the intention of Mr. Lisle), then you need to address Maxwell's Equations, which establish a definite speed of light. I was unable to find a depiction of the exact equation online, so I wrote it out on Paint:


Note that the "O" symbol denotes vacuum.

So again, you are going to need to invalidate Maxwell's Equations in order to validate your convention. And even if you could, isotropic synchrony has already been verified in multiple, conclusive experiments.

I wanted to point out this part of the article in particular:

The ASC model also makes some predictions that are as yet only partially confirmed. Since the model predicts that all regions of the universe should have aged only a few thousand years as we now see them, it follows that there should be evidence of youth in our own solar system as well as distant stellar systems. Creationists have already pointed out a number of such examples in the solar system. Comets, the internal heat of three of the Jovian planets,10 and strong planetary magnetic fields are all things than cannot last billions of years and yet are found within our solar system. I am aware that secularists have their auxiliary hypotheses to explain these things from within their own worldview. Here I simply mean to show that within a creationist framework these lines of evidence confirm a young solar system.

Auxiliary hypotheses? As if these theories were created with the purpose of proving an "old Earth". How pretentious and ignorant of Mr. Lisle. I believe that his reference to Jupiter refers to Rømers determination of the speed of light using the eclipses of Jupiters moon, Io. If he is unable to actually invalidate this method, then he is unable to validate his own proposal. This was the first experiment by which we determined that the speed of light was static, after all.

see you in a week or so,maybe few days

Ok.

[total relism]

Hey I got alittle time off from fighting the Jehovah witnesses,im really kicking ass know they wont come to my house anymore only email

Again, the issue is you linking various articles from creationist sources, which you continued to do in this very post. Here's the problem. I don't have the time or the desire to disprove the thousands of "creationist models". You want to bombard me with creationist sources until I lose my patience and give up, rather than state your own opinions and do your own research.

ouch, anyways as I said this is not my area at all I was just giving you option of which to attack,

By linking and quoting these articles, you are violating the ground rules that you initially agreed to. This is the last creationist article I am responding to. I will pretend that this is your opinion, rather than the copypasta that it is. From here on out, I better not see one more link to a creationist article, or you will have forfeited the debate. Period.

I have honestly lost all interest i like fighting the Jehovah people, whant to here a joke? what do you get when you mix a athist with a Jehovah witness?....... someone who knocks on your dorr for no reason.

Before I dissect this, I want to point out that your sourced article (and it's creator) is verbose, and it's objective is to confuse. You shouldn't have taken this debate up with me, I am not confused by your source or it's implications. I also want to point out that this isn't a "model", this is a convention.

why would I not want to debate? you have not refuted anything I have presented, in fact I should answer this as you answer my objections to a old earth, the astronomic community guy will respond or wait a unobserved cloud [oart cloud] pulls all the light to it than sends it really fast more so than ever seen to earth. Not to mention this is a self refuting argument
and lets say your right, than all you will do is show my worldview to be wrong and I change it like I have in the past and than I get to go cheat on my wife and get drunk at the bar guilt free.

The article was also a pain in the ass to read. But I digress.

Now, your convention fails to take into account Maxwell's Equations. Light, in actuality, is electromagnetic radiation. Maxwell used certain electromagnetic constants to discern the nature of light; these constants make use of the speed of light and were assumed when Einstein posited his Theory of Relativity. So, if this convention is to adhere to the Theory of Relativity (as was the intention of Mr. Lisle), then you need to address Maxwell's Equations, which establish a definite speed of light. I was unable to find a depiction of the exact equation online, so I wrote it out on Paint:


Note that the "O" symbol denotes vacuum.

So again, you are going to need to invalidate Maxwell's Equations in order to validate your convention. And even if you could, isotropic synchrony has already been verified in multiple, conclusive experiments.

I should have picked one where im in contact with the authors like the other 3 im a idiot,well since I cant answer luckily I was able to get into contact here is lisle answer to this objection.


“Don’t Maxwell’s equations prove that light travels the same speed in all directions?” Maxwell’s equations are four equations which govern the relationships between electric and magnetic fields. Since light is an electromagnetic wave, Maxwell’s equations describe its behavior and its velocity. In particular, there are two parameters called the “permittivity” and “permeability” of free space which determine the speed of light. Material substances also have permittivity and permeability (different than that of vacuum) which is why light travels at a different speed through material than through empty space. But Maxwell’s equations do not require light to travel the same speed in all directions. In fact, there are substances where light travels at very different speeds in different directions, and Maxwell’s equations still apply. In such cases, the permittivity and permeability are tensors rather than scalars; in other words, they are direction-dependent. This causes the speed of light to be different in different directions. Under the anisotropic synchrony convention, this is the case for vacuum.

I wanted to point out this part of the article in particular:
Auxiliary hypotheses? As if these theories were created with the purpose of proving an "old Earth".

they were created to exspalin contradictory evidence to the worldview so yes, just like the oart cloud.

How pretentious and ignorant of Mr. Lisle. I believe that his reference to Jupiter refers to Rømers determination of the speed of light using the eclipses of Jupiters moon, Io. If he is unable to actually invalidate this method, then he is unable to validate his own proposal. This was the first experiment by which we determined that the speed of light was static, after all.

not sure at all what your referring to as he was mentioning young earth evidence and the temperatures of planets, if your intersted watch these,or buy.

debate,somewhat
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Publ...,5633,229.aspx


http://www.answersingenesis.org/Publ...,4574,224.aspx

there is alot on the temperatures of planets and young earth, but than you would have to read creation material

[Ancient Aliens]

Moderators, you can go ahead and close this "debate".

I should have picked one where im in contact with the authors like the other 3 im a idiot,well since I cant answer luckily I was able to get into contact here is lisle answer to this objection.

And this is why we are going to have to end this debate. I asked you specifically to illustrate and defend your own points. Instead, you deliberately post responses to me by creationist authors and articles.

I also want to point out that your "source" is a moron for several reasons. Firstly, he took the time to explain to me what vacuum permittivity and permeability are, when I clearly illustrated and included them in my equation. Let's take a look at that, shall we?



What the does he think the electric and magnetic constants are? Vacuum permittivity and permeability, that's what. And this man has a Ph. D. in astrophysics?

He also blatantly ignored the original Jovian experiment using Io's eclipse, and the other listed experiments that indicate isotropic synchrony. If you are going to have someone else speak for you, at least ensure that he is intelligent enough to deal with an armchair physicist.


I devoted quite a bit of time to improving your formatting, trying to get you to post neutral sources, and helping you correct your grammar. Most importantly, though, I took the time to address each and every one of your points as respectfully as I could. And what did I receive in return? Denials, a flood of creationist articles, and several headaches.

Your beliefs envelop you in an impenetrable bastion of ignorance; any attempt to get through to you will only result in frustration. I hope that this debate serves as a lesson to others - don't waste your time responding to total relism.

[total relism]

Moderators, you can go ahead and close this "debate".



And this is why we are going to have to end this debate. I asked you specifically to illustrate and defend your own points. Instead, you deliberately post responses to me by creationist authors and articles.

I also want to point out that your "source" is a moron for several reasons. Firstly, he took the time to explain to me what vacuum permittivity and permeability are, when I clearly illustrated and included them in my equation. Let's take a look at that, shall we?



What the does he think the electric and magnetic constants are? Vacuum permittivity and permeability, that's what. And this man has a Ph. D. in astrophysics?

He also blatantly ignored the original Jovian experiment using Io's eclipse, and the other listed experiments that indicate isotropic synchrony. If you are going to have someone else speak for you, at least ensure that he is intelligent enough to deal with an armchair physicist.


I devoted quite a bit of time to improving your formatting, trying to get you to post neutral sources, and helping you correct your grammar. Most importantly, though, I took the time to address each and every one of your points as respectfully as I could. And what did I receive in return? Denials, a flood of creationist articles, and several headaches.

Your beliefs envelop you in an impenetrable bastion of ignorance; any attempt to get through to you will only result in frustration. I hope that this debate serves as a lesson to others - don't waste your time responding to total relism.

I was unable to get a direct response from jason,so this was posted for a better response from lise will have to wait. Ill wrap in spoilers as that is following the rules.


from a aig employee
Dr. Lisle is on vacation this week and so unable to respond directly to the critic's response to Jason's blog post. In all actuality though, what I'm seeing is that Dr. Lisle is claiming that Maxwell's equations only mandate the two-way speed of light, not the one-way speed, so there is no conflict with ASC. Regarding the point about Romer's experiments with Io and whether this is a measurement of the one-way speed of light, I will again post a lengthy response from Dr. Lisle off his blog (below):

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

One of our readers asked about Römer’s measurement of the speed of light using Jupiter’s moons. Römer’s method seems to be measuring the one-way speed of light, and this is how it works: Römer knew from observations that Jupiter’s moon IO takes 1.769 days to orbit Jupiter once. But Römer noticed that sometimes IO appeared to be ahead of where it was supposed to be, and other times it lagged behind. This correlated with the fact that the Earth (in its orbit around the sun) is sometimes closer to Jupiter, and other times it is farther. When Earth is closer to Jupiter, Römer speculated that it takes light less time to get here than when Earth is farther from Jupiter; this could account for the early or late apparent positions of IO. By observing the position of IO at various times of the year, Römer concluded that it takes light about 22 minutes to cross Earth’s orbit—just a bit larger than today’s estimate of 16.6 minutes. Knowing the diameter of Earth’s orbit today, this gives us the speed of light. This is clearly a one-way trip; light only has to traverse Earth’s orbit in one direction. So it sounds pretty good doesn’t it?
But Römer tacitly assumed something that makes his observations not a true one-way test. Einstein discovered that motion through space affects the passage of time. Namely, moving clocks tick at a different rate than stationary clocks. How much slower or faster the clock ticks will depend on the speed and direction of the clock. Römer didn’t know this. He assumed that the clocks on Earth (and the “clock” represented by IO) are unaffected by motion. So he concluded that the time delay was entirely due to the finite speed of light, without considering that it may be due to the effects of time-dilation, or some combination of the two. Using the ASC convention, the light travel-time from Jupiter to Earth is zero. Thus, the advancing or retarding of the timing of IO’s apparent position is due to the fact that time flows differently when Earth approaches Jupiter than it does when Earth recedes from Jupiter. The observed measurements are exactly the same as under the Einstein synchrony convention, but the cause is different.
What I find very interesting is that Römer’s method does give the right answer for the round-trip speed of light, even though Römer was attempting to measure the one-way speed. The reason for this is that if we use the Einstein synchrony convention (that is we suppose the one-way speed of light is the same in all directions), then time-dilation becomes negligible at slow velocities. This is because the linear term in the time-dilation formula goes away under Einstein synchrony convention (but not for any other convention), leaving only the quadratic term. For this reason, you would have to travel 14% the speed of light to notice a 1% effect of time-dilation under Einstein synchrony convention. But under ASC, you only need to travel 1% the speed of light to notice a 1% effect. This is why slow-clock transport methods (such as Römer’s) do not actually measure the one-way speed of light. They have implicitly assumed that time-dilation is negligible for slow speeds, but that’s only the case if the speed of light is isotropic. Thus, all such methods beg the question. By ignoring time-dilation, they have tacitly assumed that the one-way speed of light is isotropic (the same in all directions), in order to draw the conclusion thin order to draw the conclusion that it is isotropic.

know lets see what I have said of exspaling distant starlight, I never said I personally can exspalin it this is defiantly out of my learning physics astronomy etc. I just said this

I dont pretend to know everything in the world, I was giving you models from creationist for you to attack freely,I dont know witch model is correct if any none does, but the fact is that it can be exspalined we simply dont have enough info to know for sure witch is correct or will it be a future model? The point is it does not disprove a young universe.


and this

First there are many indicators from astronomy that indicate a young universe, such as comets that you ignore. than this is a self refuting argument, if you say you cant believe in a young universe because of this, or I can turn it right back on you as you said the universe is billions of years old.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i4/lighttravel.asp
horizon problem for old universe believers


http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/video/ondemand/Distant-Starlight/distant-starlightfree online to watch about distant starlight. and it also goes into detail about the horizon problem for old universe believers


in fact I should answer this as you answer my objections to a old earth, the astronomic community guy will respond or wait a unobserved cloud [oart cloud] pulls all the light to it than sends it really fast more so than ever seen to earth. Not to mention this is a self refuting argument



so I never said I could exspalin it, also I cant help but notice that you claimed without backing up know 6 times that you have somehow refuted my young earth arguments, this is why post 14 I collected all the responses and back and forth together so you cannot claim such
So know give me one exspale of something you refuted, unless you truly believe that imagining a oart cloud or saying some paleontology community guy will respond or misreading how things are measured [erosion rates] or simply mentioning that some process that are accounted for happen, and that refutes something that takes it into account, than I guess you have


so as I see it 9 problems for old earth wait 10 [distant starlight] and maybe 1 [ill give you one because i cent personally respond] against young earth, and one positive evidence for old earth.