Originally posted by dj2becker
There is Scientific evidence which suggests that the speed of light has not always been constant.

I have not heard of this before. Do you have any links?

Originally posted by dj2becker
Yeah, yeah...

The YECs can say exactly the same thing about the crack-pot evolution pseudoscicence, which is heavily biased by a ferverent belief in crack-pot evolution, which has so many holes punched through it that it needs a lot of crack-pot bearded ape-men to defend it...

Instead of throwing around insults which make you look like a crack-pot ap ...[text shortened]... discuss the issues at hand.

So are you going to supply anything useful to this conversation?

Lol, are you actually angry? I must be hitting a nerve if you've turned snappy. That's not a very Christian way to act is it dj? Why don't you offer up your other cheek so I can smack-talk it too?

Not one single piece of YECism can be shown as supportable. The scientific community has debunked it all and will continue to do so. The trouble is, that when this happens, rather than admit they're wrong, the YECs go start spouting rubbish about the 'fact' that evolution is nonsense. But here's the real clincher, whilst evolution is an incomplete theory, it is vastly supportable and the weight of evidence is extremely heavy in its favour. Creationsim relies on nothing but the bible and people who claim to be scientists and yet are constantly refuted by the scientific community coming up with theories that aren't supportable.

Tell me why is it that you are soooooo sure about YECreationism as to ignore the evidence against it? Evidence that really is hugely more convincing. Way to go dj, that's a great way to think. Real...er... believable...

Originally posted by twhitehead
I have not heard of this before. Do you have any links?

http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc1078.htm

Originally posted by dj2becker
Uniformitarianism assumes that there were no world-wide catastrophes; therefore, the rate of decay has remained constant.

If we are talking radioactive decay then what sort of catastrophes might affect this?
In science such assumptions are not made but rather a proposition is made which is then rigorously tested untill it achieves theory status which cirtainly is the case for the basic constants of physics such as radioactive decay rates over the age of the earth.
The question is asked, if they are constant what do we expect to find?if they are not constant what to we expect to find? Then we look for evidence for either option. So far all the evidence points to constant decay rates. If you flip a coint 3000 times and it always lands heads up then its science says its a two headed coin and the result is constant. The coin may have a tails side but God sure doesnt want us to see it, so who are we to argue?

Originally posted by dj2becker
http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc1078.htm

If you are going to use that as evidence you have to accept a Big Bang. You can't pick and choose.

Originally posted by Starrman
Lol, are you actually angry? I must be hitting a nerve if you've turned snappy. That's not a very Christian way to act is it dj? Why don't you offer up your other cheek so I can smack-talk it too?

Not one single piece of YECism can be shown as supportable. The scientific community has debunked it all and will continue to do so. The trouble is, that ...[text shortened]... ore convincing. Way to go dj, that's a great way to think. Real...er... believable...

Lol, are you actually angry? I must be hitting a nerve if you've turned snappy. That's not a very Christian way to act is it dj? Why don't you offer up your other cheek so I can smack-talk it too?

You should have seen my cracking up as I wrote it. 😀

Typical evolutionist - your deductive skills are absolutely non-existant.

Not one single piece of YECism can be shown as supportable.

If you use this sentence as a presupposition to interpreting the YEC evidence, then yes.

You should get out more... Maybe open a Creation magazine, if you can get so far...

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
If you are going to use that as evidence you have to accept a Big Bang. You can't pick and choose.

I do beleive in the big bang. Only it is slightly different to yours...

"God spoke, and BANG, it happened..."

Originally posted by twhitehead
If we are talking radioactive decay then what sort of catastrophes might affect this?
In science such assumptions are not made but rather a proposition is made which is then rigorously tested untill it achieves theory status which cirtainly is the case for the basic constants of physics such as radioactive decay rates over the age of the earth.
The ques ...[text shortened]... t. The coin may have a tails side but God sure doesnt want us to see it, so who are we to argue?

If we are talking radioactive decay then what sort of catastrophes might affect this?

A global flood, which resets the atomic clock.

Originally posted by dj2becker
I do beleive in the big bang. Only it is slightly different to yours...

"God spoke, and BANG, it happened..."

How long ago?

EDIT: Oh God not this flood resetting the clock crap again. I asked you to provide some kind of source last time you mentioned it and you didn't. Explain the science behind a whole bunch of water interrupting the process of radioactive decay.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Lol, are you actually angry? I must be hitting a nerve if you've turned snappy. That's not a very Christian way to act is it dj? Why don't you offer up your other cheek so I can smack-talk it too?

You should have seen my cracking up as I wrote it. 😀

Typical evolutionist - your deductive skills are absolutely non-existant.

Not one sin n yes.

You should get out more... Maybe open a Creation magazine, if you can get so far...

You have the temerity to lecture me on deduction? You don't even know what the word means. You are the king at using induction where you shouldn't and when you should you use it so poorly it can barely be called that at all!

I'm not interpreting the evidence, I'm talking about scientific refutation by people educated and practicing in that field. Presupposition has nothing to do with it.

Originally posted by sonhouse
No ape like skull with modern features. Well now there is one.

Are you suggesting there has been some recent breakthrough anthropological discovery? Please post a link if this is the case.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Lol, are you actually angry? I must be hitting a nerve if you've turned snappy. That's not a very Christian way to act is it dj? Why don't you offer up your other cheek so I can smack-talk it too?

You should have seen my cracking up as I wrote it. 😀

Typical evolutionist - your deductive skills are absolutely non-existant.

Not one sin n yes.

You should get out more... Maybe open a Creation magazine, if you can get so far...

Sarcasm makes baby jesus cry :'(

Originally posted by dj2becker

A global flood, which resets the atomic clock.

Hahahahahahahahahahaha....

So you are suggesting A FLOOD can alter rates of radioactive decay? Surely there would be some very easy to find supporting evidence for this, since there are floods everyday. They really don't. This shows that you have an incredibly tenous grasp on the most basic of principles which you argue against. Switch off that 'magic box' you are typing at and go live in a cave and eat raw meat, for that is the level of intelligence you display. You get more and more delusional every time you post dj.

Originally posted by Starrman
You have the temerity to lecture me on deduction? You don't even know what the word means. You are the king at using induction where you shouldn't and when you should you use it so poorly it can barely be called that at all!

I'm not interpreting the evidence, I'm talking about scientific refutation by people educated and practicing in that field. Presupposition has nothing to do with it.

Have you ever read a Creation magazine?

If you haven't, try this one:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v27/i4/ichthyosaur.asp

Originally posted by dj2becker
http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc1078.htm

Now compare your statement: "There is Scientific evidence which suggests that the speed of light has not always been constant."

and from the website you have given to back it up

"It is easier for me to question Einstein's theory than it is to assume there is some kind of strange, exotic matter around me in my kitchen."

Do you have any links to any site talking about evidence not to some proffessor who is uncomfortable with strange exotic mater in his kitchen.

I personally do not know of any reason why the speed of light must be constant, it could be a function of the size of the universe. However I am a mathematician and computer programmer not a physicist. I have cirtainly not heard of any evidence for variance in the speed of light and would be interested in any site that discusses the possible implications.
However by studying the motions of stars I am sure it would be possible to determine whether the speed of light has varied over the past million years at least and to what extent it could have changed. In fact the observation of gravitational lenses must be able to yield some information in this matter.
Important to remember is that changes to the speed of light imply a warping of spacetime and will result in changes to other aspects of spacetime.