Aineo wrote:Rev wrote:Have you reviewed the data that physicists are now taking seriously that show the speed of light has decayed over time or are you comments made from your own ignorance?
Probably as well as you, but I have a suggestion. Why don't you link us to half a dozen or so noncreationist websites that discuss the matter. Let's see what real scientists are saying about it.
Rev
I have been to the Grand Canyon and live close to Dinosaur National Park, so I am well aware of the fact dinosaurs existed. The assumption being made by many scientists is that a mile of sediment cannot be the result of a worldwide catastrophe.
That is irrelevant. What we are talking about is more than 2 1/2 vertical miles of sediments with the dinosaur footprints smack in the middle of them. One of the requirements of a good scientific hypothesis is that it must conform to known fact. The facts are that not only do these footprints disconfirm a global flood but that there are thousands of trace fossils globally that do the same. There are over 550 known animal tracksites in the sedimentary record of the American West alone. They cannot have been made before a global flood because such a catastrophe would have destroyed them. They cannot have been made during the flood for the same reason. They cannot have been made after the flood because that would require more than a mile of sediment to be built up in layers of younger age and in less then 5,000 years. Creationists claim coal is the result of vegetation being being buried in the sediments of Noah's flood. That cannot account for dinosaur footprints found in the roofs of some Western coalmines.
You brought up the Grand Canyon, do you honestly think that water runs uphill? Think about it, in order for the Colorado River to have continually carved that canyon water would have had to run uphill during periods of geolological uplift.
The Colorado River has been explained as a rejuvinated old (i.e., meandering) river. Have you read that explanation? If so, what facts falsify it as an explanation for the current river?
I see you have taken the low road with your comments concerning scientists who are creationists.
Can you name any real scientists in the field of astronomy who are YE creationists? Wannabees don't count.
It seems when old age earth advocates cannot address the date they attack the men who have accumulated the data. And yes, I have checked out who among physicists are interested in readdressing light speed and not all of them are creationists. You just lost a lot of credibility.
So instead of providing the requested websites, you throw a red herring. Instead of attempting a diversionary tactic, why don't you link us to half a dozen or so noncreationist websites that discuss the matter? My suspicion is that you know what you want us to believe has already been refuted. Am I right?
As to testing the ark as ship designers test new ship designs, if such tests are good enough for modern ships why should not the same techniques be valid for the ark? Because the results violate your prejudices? I guess it is a good thing that engineers have not remained in the dark ages by using computer design to test buildings, bridges, and etc. in a virtual environment before they put lives at risk with the real thing with a hope and a prayer it will not collapse.